DID’s FOCUS articles cover major weapons acquisition programs – and no program is more important to the USAF than its aerial tanker fleet renewal. In January 2007, the big question was whether there would be a competition for the USA’s KC-X proposal, covering 175 production aircraft and 4 test platforms. The total cost is now estimated at $52 billion, but America’s aerial tanker fleet demands new planes to replace its KC-135s, whose most recent new delivery was in 1965. Otherwise, unpredictable age or fatigue issues, like the ones that grounded its F-15A-D fighters in 2008, could ground its aerial tankers – and with them, a substantial slice of the USA’s total airpower.

KC-Y and KC-Z buys are supposed to follow in subsequent decades, in order to replace 530 (195 active; ANG 251; Reserve 84) active tankers, as well as the USAF’s 59 heavy KC-10 tankers that were delivered from 1979-1987. Then again, fiscal and demographic realities may mean that the 179 plane KC-X buy is “it” for the USAF. Either way, the KC-X stakes were huge for all concerned.

In the end, it was Team Boeing’s KC-767 NexGen/ KC-46A (767 derivative) vs. EADS North America’s KC-45A (Airbus KC-30/A330-200 derivative), both within the Pentagon and in the halls of Congress. The financial and employment stakes guaranteed a huge political fight no matter which side won. After Airbus won in 2008, that fight ended up sinking and restarting the entire program. Three years later, Boeing won the recompete. Now, they have to deliver their KC-46A.

Boeing’s KC-46A, and Its Team

KC-46A concept
(click to view full)

KC-46A Pegasus production takes place in 2 phases: the 767-2C, and then the militarized KC-46A modifications.

There are still a number of things we don’t know, though more details have emerged since Boeing won the competition. The first step is to build a 767 on the commercial production line with a cargo door and freighter floor, an advanced flight deck display borrowed from its new 787, body tanks, and provisions for aerial tanker systems. Initial Boeing graphics featuring upturned winglets on the wingtips are no longer part of the design, but Pratt & Whitney’s 62,000 pound thrust PW4062s remain their engine choice. This is the 767-2C, and it receives an FAA 767 amended Type Certificate.

The 767-2C is militarized in a separate finishing center by adding aerial refueling equipment, an air refueling operator’s station that includes panoramic 3-dimensional displays, and threat detection/ countermeasures systems. The resulting KC-46A receives an FAA 767 Supplemental Type Certificate given to substantially different variants, and must also receive USAF certification that clears the way for full acceptance.

Boeing’s refueling boom is derived from the KC-10’s AARB, but adds 3-D viewing and a slightly higher fuel offload rate of 1,200 gallons/min. The centerline and wing-mounted refueling pods will now come from Cobham plc’s Sargent Fletcher, who was also partnered with Airbus for this feature. Unlike the A330 MRTT’s systems, however, the KC-46A’s wing refueling pods still need to finish testing on the 776-2C. The USAF will buy 46 wing sets for its fleet, which will allow multi-aircraft (multipoint) aerial refueling when installed.

Fielding a tanker built after the 1960s allows the USAF to include a number of new systems, which would be too costly to retrofit into the existing KC-135 fleet. The net effect is to make its KC-46As front-line refuelers. The cockpit and exterior lighting are night-vision compatible for covert rendezvous. Advanced communications and secure datalinks are big steps forward for the fleet, and their classified feeds will be used by specialized ESTAR and TCS systems designed to route the tanker away from threats. NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) protection will allow the planes to operate in contaminated environments, while EMP hardening reduces the effects of high-frequency radiation bursts on all those new solid-state electronics. On a more prosaic level, radar warning systems, infrared defensive systems, cockpit armor, and fuel tank ballistic protection will all be welcome.

KC-46A Industrial Team

Boeing’s KC-X 1.0 Team

Boeing’s industrial team has slowly announced itself over many months since the award. American KC-46A content has been touted as high as 85%, with British firms picking up much of the balance. Boeing reportedly looked hard for supply chain savings in Round 2, though, in order to lose less money with its under-cost bidding strategy.

That KC-46A design is a big change from KC-X round 1, whose KC-767 Advanced used a 767-200ER fuselage; a 767-300F freighter wing, landing gear, cargo door and floor; and a 767-400ER’s flaps and flight deck (derived in turn from the 777). A new design fly-by-wire boom with remote viewing would expand the tanker’s effective refueling airspace, and offload more fuel. Engines would be 2 Pratt & Whitney PW4062s, with 62,000 pounds of thrust each, instead of the KC-767A/J’s 60,200 pound CF6-80C2s.

Some of the suppliers also changed, as Boeing progressed from the canceled KC-767 lease deal, to KC-X, to its final design in Round 2:

Boeing’s production line had also progressed. Near the end of the KC-X bidding, Boeing added civilian 767 orders to keep its production line going. That was enough to create a cushion if KC-X faced further challenges and issues, but the reality is that civilian 767 production looks set to end soon. The US military will soon become the 767 production line’s sole support.

KC-X: The Program

A March 2012 GAO report summed up the risk driving the KC-46A program, and the current state of the USAF’s tanker fleets:

“According to the Air Force, the national security strategy cannot be executed without aerial refueling… the KC-135 Stratotanker, is over 50 years old on average and costing increasingly more to maintain and support. With… more than 16,000 flight hours on each aircraft, the KC-135s will approach over 80 years of age when the fleet is retired as projected in the 2040 time frame. In 1981, the Air Force began supplementing its fleet of KC-135s with [59] KC-10s… that transport air cargo and provide refueling. Much larger than the KC-135, the KC-10 provides both boom and hose and drogue refueling capabilities[Footnote 4] on the same flight and can conduct transoceanic missions. The KC-10s now average about 27 years of age with more than 26,000 flight hours on each, and their service life is expected to end around 2045.”

The $7.2 billion October 2012 development cost estimate includes $4.9 billion for the aircraft development contract and 4 test aircraft, $0.3 billion for the aircrew and maintenance training systems, and $2 billion for other government costs and some risk funds. The total procurement cost estimate of $40.46 billion in base-year dollars buys 175 production aircraft, initial spares, and other support items as priced in contract options.

Cost estimates as of April 2014 are stable, with an estimated $1.6 billion to cover other government costs like program office support, test and evaluation support, contract performance risk, and other development risks. That includes the cost of test flights, which will sometimes feature operational military aircraft of various kinds to act as receivers.

An accompanying military construction estimate of $4.2 billion includes the projected costs to build aircraft hangars, maintenance and supply shops, and other facilities to house and support the full 175-plane KC-46 fleet at up to 10 main operating bases (McConnell AFB, KS is MOB1), 1 training base at Altus AFB, OK; and the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex depot.

The KC-46A Development Phase: Budgets, Splits, & Dates

KC-46 development

The Pentagon’s latest Selected Acquisition Report estimates a total KC-46A development cost of $5.615 billion, which would actually be $1.221 billion over the KC-X EMD phase’s original Target Cost of $4.394 billion. Fortunately for the USAF, they structured the contract so they can’t pay more than $4.7 billion, and the overall bid cost to the US government for development plus production remains below Airbus’ bid.

Here’s how it works:

Up to the $4.898 billion ceiling, the contract split for amounts over the $4.394 billion base price is 60/40. The difference is $504 million, so the government would pay $302.4 million ($4.696 billion total), and Boeing would pay about $201.6 million.

Costs above the $4.898 billion ceiling are all Boeing’s responsibility.

Current estimates show that there’s almost no chance of coming in under the ceiling. Boeing’s current cost estimate is $5.164 billion, which would raise its private liability for the cost increases to $467.5 million (201.6 + all 265.9 over the ceiling). If the government program manager is right, Boeing’s liability rises to $918.6 million (201.6 + all 717.0 over). The difference matters to Boeing, but the Pentagon doesn’t have to care which EMD Phase figure is correct, or how much higher EMD costs go. Their costs are set, at $4.7 billion, though actual dollars will be a bit higher due to inflation etc.

That’s if, and only if, the USAF doesn’t start asking for design changes. If they do, that would trigger a cycle of charges over and above the agreed contract.

As of December 2012, schedule planning looked like this:

Concurrence concerns

The USAF has maintained its Q4 FY 2015 (summer 2015) goal for a successful Operational Assessment and Milestone C decision, and this remains the official target. Success which would clear the way for 2 firm-fixed-price Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots to deliver the initial 19 aircraft. Full-Rate Production options would follow beginning in FY 2017 as a firm-fixed-price contract with some adjustments for outside circumstances, and a not-to-exceed cap. The USAF will be assessing the possibility of breaking out the engines as a separate government procurement in FRP, instead of having Boeing provide them.

As Airbus predicted when the contract was awarded, however, Boeing has admitted to trouble meeting these development milestones. The schedule will need to be changed, but there’s no official replacement schedule yet.

The schedule may need to incorporate other changes as well. The Pentagon’s own DOT&E testers have doubted proclaimed Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) dates (Q3 FY 2016 – Q1 2017) for some time. Beyond technical issues that have slowed the new design, testing must avoid revealing significant problems.
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) was pegged for August 2017, with Full Operational Capability (FOC) expected by August 2019, but USAF Air Mobility Command is no longer giving official target dates.

The program as a whole is expected to end by 2028.

The KC-46A Production Phase: Risks & Numbers

KC-10 & F/A-18C

The current program calls for Boeing to begin delivering KC-46As to the USAF by 2015. Unfortunately, the KC-46A is too different from previous KC-767A models sold to Japan and Italy, so it will need its own development, testing, and certification time. That’s why Airbus and program skeptics have always doubted that Boeing could deliver 18 certified, fully developed and tested planes by 2017. Boeing disputes this, but the Pentagon’s own DOT&E office added weight to those concerns in its 2011 reports, which declared the KC-46A’s test program “not executable.” That continues to be a concern.

1. Weight limits. The KC-46A is close to its limit, and any more growth will start to take away fuel capacity, while increasing fuel burn rate. As of December 2013, Boeing remains confident that they will remain under the maximum take-off weight of 204,000 pounds.

2. New wing refueling pods. The KC-46’s pods will be redesigned to reduce buffeting of the aircraft’s wing, and change the way the refueling hose exits the pod. Still a technical risk as of December 2013.

3. 3-D display for the boom operator.

4. Threat Correlation Software. Used to help plot safe routes, along with the…

5. ESTAR software.

6. ALR-69 Radar Warning Receiver integration. Issues like figuring out precise placement, and antenna design, make fitting a large aircraft more challenging than many people expect.

Problems with these or other systems could delay the program further, and some of these issues could also make certification harder or longer. Even so, the actual risk that set the development program back wasn’t any of these. It was the need to redesign certain wiring sections for military-grade shielding requirements and mandatory separation distances.

Meanwhile, the USAF plans to respond to continued budget cuts by removing their existing KC-10 heavy refuelers entirely, adding tremendous risk by removing their inherent boom/hose versatility, and leaving no tanker alternative if the KC-135s develop a serious problem.

Fleet Risks

Over the longer term, plotting even a 3-year production delay against planned deliveries and KC-135 retirements never drops the medium tanker fleet much below present levels. The initial drop is slight, and the same final figure is reached in 2030 instead of 2027. On the other hand, RAND’s 2006 Analysis of Alternatives for KC-X highlighted a very different risk, which needs to be understood:

“The current (December 2005) assessment of the flight-hour life of the KC-135 fleet and the expected future flying-hour programs together imply that these aircraft can operate into the 2040s. It cannot be said with high confidence that this is not the case, although there are risks associated with a fleet whose age is in the 80- to 90-year range. It can also not be said with high confidence that the current fleet can indeed operate into the 2040s without major cost increases or operational shortfalls, up to and including grounding of large parts of the fleet for substantial lengths of time, due to currently unknown technical problems that may arise. The nation does not currently have sufficient knowledge about the state of the KC-135 fleet to project its technical condition over the next several decades with high confidence.”

In English, nobody knows if an airplane fleet that’s already 50 years old will remain safe, or avoid unforeseen mechanical or structural problems, because there’s no previous example of what they’re trying to do. Those kinds of sudden “age-out” problems recently grounded the USAF’s F-15A-D fleet for several months, and led to the unexpected retirement of almost 1/4 of the fleet. If anything similar happens to the KC-135, the USAF’s planned number of aerial tankers may not resemble its actual future fleet.

This risk, and the potential absence of the KC-10, is exactly why the KC-X program has been the USAF’s #1 priority. On the other hand, it’s an equally good reason not to trust the USAF’s own rosy projections for its future fleet size. The graph below shows how this kind of scenario could play out. In DID’s hypothetical example, we used actual data to the present day, plus all planned reductions in the USAF’s 2011 plan. Fleet problems lead to the forced retirement of 1/3 of the remaining fleet in 2021 over safety and cost-to-fix issues, followed by a second mechanical issue or budget crisis that grounds another 55 planes in 2029. The KC-10 fleet is not part of this calculus at all.

The USA’s looming fiscal entitlements crisis will begin to bite in earnest post-2020, and the pattern of cuts in the USA and in other countries shows a marked tendency to simply retire platforms with significant maintenance costs. KC-135 per-hour flight costs are already increasing, and a fleet that also needed expensive refits or fixes would be a prime target for future cuts. Here’s what this scenario looks like:

Finally, DID believes that there will be no KC-Y or KC-Z, so the timing of KC-135 problems and retirements isn’t critical. Any serious problems in the KC-135 fleet could create a similar end-point, even if the drops happened after 2030.

KC-46A Export Prospects

IAI’s KC-767 MMTT

Once the KC-46As do enter service, they will join Italy’s KC-767A (4) and Japan’s KC-767J (4) small KC-767 fleets. Both customers have experienced long delivery delays while Boeing has worked to iron out technical problems, and their KC-767s will have a number of key differences from the KC-46A. Japan’s boom-equipped KC-767s were delivered form 2008-2010, but Italy’s aircraft with hose-and-drogue systems were only accepted in February 2011.

That’s one option, if Boeing will produce the planes.

The KC-46A’s schedule and dwindling civil 767 production are problematic for export orders, because the USAF will be Boeing’s sole focus until the EMD Phase is done in 2017 – or later. Countries that need aerial tankers before 2019-2020 will need to look elsewhere. Boeing declined to bid on India’s aerial tanker RFP, for instance. There’s also a customer commitment issue. Should customers accept the KC-767A, which is certified and in service, or wait for the KC-46A, and hope it’s on time?

Airbus sees this lock-up as an opportunity to add to its A330 MRTT customer list, of course, signing customers like India, Qatar, and Singapore. Ironically, the other big beneficiary may by Israel’s IAI Bedek, whose inexpensive KC-767 MMTT conversion of used Boeing freighters already has customers in Colombia and Brazil.

As of June 2013, Boeing was reportedly pursuing prospects for up to 20 aerial tanker exports. If so, they have been quiet pursuits. The next big opportunity will be in South Korea.

KC-X: Contracts & Key Developments

FY 2016 – 2019

Boom assembly

August 13/19: Pease Guard Base First to Receive Pegasus The Pease Air National Guard Base in New Hampshire is the first guard base to receive a next-generation KC-46A Pegasus refueling tanker plane. The refueling tanker flew into the Pease Air National Guard base late Thursday afternoon. The Pegasus is developed from a Boeing 767 passenger plane. It is replacing KC-135 Stratotankers in the US Air Force fleet of refueling planes. The Air Base will receive three KC-46As per month for four months. The KC-46A can refuel any fixed-wing plane, foreign or domestic made, while both planes are airborne. It can also accommodate a mix of passengers, including patients and cargo. Boeing had been three years behind schedule on the Pegasus program before deliveries began. The Air Force halted deliveries a couple of times due to debris in the plane. Last week, Lockheed received a $55.5 million contract modification for engineering work on a redesign of the plane’s boom telescope actuator.

August 6/19: Engineering, Manufacturing and Development The Air Force awarded Boeing a $55.5 million contract modification for KC-46 engineering, manufacturing and development. The Boeing KC-46 Pegasus is a military aerial refueling and strategic military transport aircraft developed by Boeing from its 767 jet airliner. The new KC-46 fleet is planned to replace the US Air Force’s aging fleet of Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers. In April 2019, the company was awarded a $5.7 billion contract for a new fleet of the aircraft with combat capabilities. The KC-46 has completed receiver certification testing with Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft this year. The San Antonio Express News reports that the KC-46 „has been plagued by critical deficiencies that include the plane’s ability to refuel stealth aircraft without damaging them“. The Air Force even stopped accepting the KC-46 twice after debris was found in the planes. These issues have cost the USAF more than $300 million and forced it to limit some refueling operations. Under the current modification, Boeing will perform work in Seattle through February 2021.

June 20/19: Loose Never Ends FlightGlobal reports that the US Air Force is still finding foreign object debris insight KC-46 Pegasus refueling tankers. Tools, rubbish and left-over parts, including loose nuts, are being found since Boeing first delivered the refuelers in January and revamped its inspection process. Assistant secretary of the Air Force, Will Roper cited „cultural issues“ as the root of the problem. Air Force stopped accepting the planes from Boeing in February until its inspection process was changed. Deliveries resumed in March and were halted again after the Air Force found more debris. Will Roper says, he expects all of the KC-46s are going to have foreign object debris.

May 1/19: PC2 Boeing won $5.7 billion for Pegasus Combat Capability (PC2) enhancements. According to the DoD, work will include a broad range of post-production related non-recurring and recurring requirements centered on KC-46 air vehicle needs. The Pegasus KC-46 is a refueling tanker that was developed from the Boeing 767 jet. Boeing was first contracted to build four KC-46A aircraft under the $3.9 billion KC-X contract awarded by the USAF in 2011. The Air Force took delivery of the first two Pegasus aircraft in January this year. However, in March debris issues occurred and acceptance was stopped. Deliveries were resumed last week. Boeing will perform PC2 work in Seattle and the scheduled completion date is April 28, 2029.

April 29/19: Israeli Letter of Request The Israeli Air Force is authorized to issue a Letter of Request for two Boeing KC-46 refueling tankers, IsraelDefense reports. After a new government has been established and the next Minister of Defense has been appointed, the Israeli Air Force will likely face some changes. The most pressing decision to make is what heavy-lift helicopter will replace the CH-53 Yas’ur. In the matter of choosing a new refueling tanker, it is very likely that IAF will decide on the KC-46 as it already has reviewed the aircraft and flown in it. The KC-46 Pegasus was developed by Boeing from its 767 jet airliner.

April 4/19: Halted once more! The Air Force reportedly halted deliveries of the KC-46 Pegasus tanker once again. The reason for the halt are foreign objects in closed compartments. Just last month the Air Force first stopped deliveries for the same reason. Deliveries resumed several days later after Boeing agreed to an additional inspections plan. The decision to stop the Pegasus delivery once more was made on March 23, but this week inspectors kept identifying additional foreign object debris and other areas, in which Boeing did not meet quality standards. Boeing has so far delivered seven KC-46s to the Air Force. The Pegasus is a widebody, multirole tanker, that is able to refuel allied and coalition military aircraft compatible with international aerial refueling procedures.

March 14/19: Air Force resumes Deilvery The US Air Force received a KC-46 Pegasus on March 11 after the aircraft passed a Foreign Object Debris inspection at Boeing’s production facility. The Pegasus is a military aerial refueling aircraft developed by Boeing. The Air Force selected the Pegasus to replace the KC-135 Stratotankers. The first Pegasus was scheduled to be delivered in August 2017 but was delayed until January 2019. Deliveries of the jets were halted last month after foreign object debris was found in one of the aircraft. Boeing had offered to inspect all the aircraft that were accepted by the Air Force. Loose tools and other items were found inside a completed airplane. Subsequent deliveries will occur as Boeing successfully completes each aircraft’s inspections and actions assigned from the review. Boeing plans to deliver 36 of the aircraft this year and about a dozen more are nearing completion.

December 10/18: Japan Japan is ordering a second KC-46A Pegasus for its air force. The aircraft is procured under a contract modification valued at $159 million. Delivery of the first tanker to the JASDF is scheduled for February 2021. Once delivered, the KC-46 will add a significant boost external link to Japan’s aerial refueling capabilities, adding to the current fleet of four KC-767J tankers. Work will be performed at Boeing’s factory in Seattle, Washington and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2021.

December 6/18: KC-46 Phase II certification Boeing achieves another milestone in its KC-46 tanker program and sets the stage for the start of Initial Operational Test & Evaluation testing next year. The Pegasus successfully achieved its Phase II receiver certification, and proved that it can refuel F-16, KC-135, C-17, A-10, KC-46, B-52, and F/A-18 aircraft. Phase II consisted of three weeks of flights with F-15E fighter jets stationed at Edwards AFB in California. Boeing says in a press statement, that during the tests a KC-46 and receiver aircraft flew at different airspeeds, altitudes and configurations to ensure compatibility and performance throughout the refueling envelope of each receiver. “The Air Force crews were with us every step of the way during this critical testing,” said Jake Kwasnik, KC-46 test program manager. “It was awesome to see everyone working together as we conducted flights out of Boeing Field and also at Edwards and Minot Air Force bases.” Phase III receiver testing will start in 2019, and includes training with additional receiver aircraft. Boeing is currently on contract for the first 52 of an expected 179 tankers for the US Air Force.

November 5/18: Refueling qualification Boeing’s new KC-46 tanker receives more certifications as it successfully completes aerial refueling of two additional aircraft types. During recently held tests the KC-46 completed receiver certification testing for the B-52 bomber and the F/A-18 fighter jet, with the F-15 to follow next year. A Boeing spokesperson says that the certification test are in preparation for the start of Initial Operational Test and Evaluation work next year. KC-46A is a militarised version of the 767-2C. Modification include aerial refueling equipment, an air refueling operator’s station that includes panoramic 3-dimensional displays, and threat detection/ countermeasures systems. Boeing recently missed the delivery schedule for its first aircraft which was expected to take place on October 27. The KC-46 acquisition program sees for the delivery of 179 tankers at a cost of $44.3 billion, with the first aircraft expected to be delivered between April and June 2016.

October 19/18: Boeing misses deadline – again! Boeing will miss the delivery deadline of its first KC-46 tanker aircraft to the US Air Force, which was set for October 27th. US Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told journalists in a round-table at Bloomberg headquarters in New York, that the service and the company are currently trying “to lay down the path forward for delivery and to make sure the deficiencies that have been identified are taken care of in a way that brings that aircraft in as promised.” The missed deadline is the latest in a series of missed deadlines, that include unresolved deficiencies with the tanker’s system for midair refueling and a delayed FAA certification. The KC-46 acquisition program sees for the delivery of 179 tankers at a cost of $44.3 billion, with the first aircraft expected to be delivered between April and June 2016.

September 12/18: More orders The US Air Force is ordering 18 additional KC-46A tanker aircraft from Boeing. The contract has a value of $2.8 billion and includes spares and support equipment for the Lot 4 aircraft. The KC-46A is a wide-body, multi-mission aircraft capable of transporting fuel, cargo, passengers and patients. The airframe is based on the KC-767 but comes with modifications like a cargo door, an advanced flight deck display and militarised modification ranging from an air refuelling operator station to threat detection and avoidance systems. Work will be performed at Boeing’s facility in Seattle, Washington and is expected to be completed by January 2022.

August 8/18: Competition Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Boeing are currently competing in being the lead vendor in one of Israel’s biggest defense procurement programs. The Israel Air Force is looking to modernize its fleet of tanker aircraft as means to maintain its air-superiority. IAI proposed to buy buying used Boeing 767 aircraft on the open market and converting them for airborne refueling of combat planes, however Boeing is reluctant to grant IAI permits to convert its planes to tanker configuration. Boeing has a clear interest in ousting IAI from the procurement program as it wants to push sales of its newly developed KC-46, which comes with a price-tag of $250-300 million. The Israel Air Force’s current tankers are used Boeing 707s converted by IAI in the early 1980s.

May 08/18: Can the KC-46 be delivered in time? Boeing’s KC-46 Tanker program hit another bump. Due to continuous cost overruns and schedule delays, the company has racked up more than $3 billion worth of pretax charges. Just last week Boeing disclosed another $81 million-pretax penalty on the program in its financial report for the first quarter of 2018. According to the terms of Boeing’s fixed-price development contract with the US Air Force, the company is responsible for any costs over the $4.9 billion award. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson has been publicly dismissive of the company’s progress, telling lawmakers that the company has perhaps been too focused on its lucrative commercial business to give the tanker program the attention it deserves. In total, Boeing has 34 KC-46s in some stage of production, and the first four aircraft planned for delivery have already flown and are in storage. Despite company officials reassuring that all ‘required assets available’ obligations can be met, it is yet unclear if Boeing will be able to deliver all of the 18 certified KC-46s and nine refueling pods this year.

April 30/18: More delivery delays A new assessment carried out by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that Boeing will be unable to deliver all 18 KC-46 Pegasus aerial refueling tankers this year and will only be able to do so in May 2019. Speaking on the new timeline after a visit to Boeing’s Seattle facility in March, Air Force Under Secretary Matt Donovan said the firm “were very pressurized to get this the last ten yards” to delivery, adding that first delivery “is not a contractual requirement,” and the original goal of April to June 2016 “was always an estimate.” Still, it’s “a psychological milestone, and it’s important to us.” He added that he had also seen software fixes that “will vastly improve” the refueling operations.

April 9/18: Milestone in the face of delays Boeing has scored another milestone in its KC-46 Pegasus tanker program, several weeks after Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson criticised the firm for delays to the program. The announcement made by Boeing on Wednesday said that the Pegasus completed the fuel on-load testing portion required for the FAA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) by refueling another KC-46A in mid-air. The fuel transfer took place during a 3h, 40min-long flight on an undisclosed date, successfully transferring 66,200kg (146,000lb) of jet fuel and achieved the maximum fuel off-load rate of 1,200 gallons per minute. The KC-46 now has demonstrated the ability to receive fuel from three tankers in the USAF fleet: KC-46, KC-135 and KC-10 aircraft, Boeing says. It also has demonstrated refueling with other aircraft including the F-16, F/A-19, AV-8B, C-17 and A-10.

March 22/18: Wilson slams delays Boeing’s KC-46 Pegasus tanker program has come under fire after Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson took the firm to task during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, Flight Global reports. During the hearing, Wilson criticised the airframer over delivery delays of the aircraft to the USAF saying: “One of the frustrations with Boeing is they are much more focused on their commercial activity then getting this right for the Air Force, and getting these aircraft to the Air Force.” “We have asked them to get their A team on this to get these problems fixed and get the aircraft to the Air Force,” she added. The firm responded by saying that “there is no greater priority at The Boeing Company right now than the delivery of the KC-46,” however, did not guarantee that the first batch of tankers would be delivered by the second quarter of 2018. The USAF awarded Boeing a $4.9 billion contract in 2011 to modify the 767-2C commercial freighter into the KC-46A military tanker, but manufacturing and development issues have caused the firm to reportedly lose $2 billion.

March 2/18: EPT Testing Following a report released in January expressing concerns about the KC-46 Pegasus tanker aircraft, the US Air Force is working with the Pentagon’s operational test and evaluation office to dissuade these issues while maintaining the aircraft will keep to its milestones and schedules. One issue raised was that the aircraft did not meet the office’s standards for electromagnetic pulse testing—which took place in July at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, and Edwards Air Force Base, California—however, this was because not all of the systems were online during the previous round of tests. The test showed that the tanker’s flight-critical and boom-refueling systems could withstand a 6-decibel electromagnetic pulse, but certain systems were uninstalled or deactivated before testing, according to the report. “The systems that were uninstalled or deactivated were not flight critical or required for aerial refueling operations,” the command said. There are no plans as of yet for additional EPTs.

December 27/17: FMS Contract-Japan Work is to begin on producing Japan’s first KC-46 tanker aircraft, following the $289 million USAF firm-fixed-price contract awarded to Boeing to deliver one unit to Tokyo. The contract provides for non-recurring engineering, integrated logistics support and one KC-46A aircraft and is a 100 percent foreign military sale (FMS) to the Japanese government. Work will take place in Seattle, Washington with delivery to the JASDF to take place by February 28, 2021. Once delivered, the KC-46 will add a significant boost to Japan’s aerial refueling capabilities, adding to the current fleet of four KC-767J tankers.

December 8/17: Milestone-First Flight Despite announcing delays to its delivery schedule on Tuesday, good news rocked the KC-46A Pegasus Tanker program as the first operational aircraft successfully carried out its maiden flight on the same day. Over the course of the 3.5 hour flight, test pilots took the tanker to 39,000 feet and performed operational checks on its systems before landing. The model used in the test is the seventh built for the program, with the previous models used for certification and testing and to date have racked up 2,200 flight hours and more than 1,600 “contacts” during refueling flights with F-16, F/A-18, AV-8B, C-17, A-10, KC-10 and KC-46 aircraft.

December 6/17: Delivery Delays Boeing has admitted that the planned delivery of the first KC-46 Pegasus tanker aircraft to the US Air Force (USAF) has been postponed. The firm had previously maintained, as recently as last month, that it was confident the tanker could be delivered by the end of the year, after missing the initial delivery deadline of August 2017. Now, Boeing say deliveries will now take place in 2018, and is contractually obliged to deliver 18 KC-46s and nine refueling pods by October 2018—14 months later than originally planned. Cost overruns for the program experienced by Boeing to date amount to approximately $2.9 billion pretax, or $1.9 billion after tax.

November 16/17: Despite testing issues and delivery delays, Boeing has been aggressively marketing its new KC-46A tanker aircraft to Middle East governments at this year’s Dubai Airshow. There is a high demand for aerial tankers in the region as the US Air Force’s (USAF) tanker fleet supports the Saudi Arabian-led aerial campaign in Yemen with air refuelling, and the airshow is being used by Boeing as an opportunity to get governments to augment their tanker capabilities or switch allegiances. But the US airframer will have its work cut out for them—rival Airbus has recently delivered its A330 tanker to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

November 1/17: Early test data gathered by the US Air Force (USAF) has led the service to be confident that a software solution could fix some deficiencies found in the Boeing KC-46 tanker aircraft. Speaking on the testing, Gen Carlton Everhart, commander of the USAF Air Mobility Command, said the reprograming could fix a high-frequency (HF) transmit as well as an “uncommanded boom extension”, although further testing will be required. The HF radio, which must be turned off to avoid electrical sparking between the boom and receiver, is now tolerable according to vendors, while the boom extension issue does not damage the aircraft.

October 16/17: A Boeing and US Air Force (USAF) test team has successfully completed the first mid-air refueling involving two KC-46A aerial tankers. The demonstration took place during a recent four-hour flight, during which the two aircraft transferred 38,100 pounds of fuel to each other at 1,200 gallons of fuel per minute. Manufacturer Boeing hailed the demonstration as a “milestone” that opens the door to additional certification and specification compliance testing. More than a dozen KC-46s will be delivered to the USAF next year and will begin replacing the service’s ageing fleet of KC-135s. So far, KC-46 test aircraft have had more than 1,300 contacts during refueling flights with a number of aircraft, including the F-16, F/A-18, AV-8B, C-17, A-10 and KC-10.

September 26/17: The US Air Force (USAF) has expressed concern that Boeing will face difficulties in meeting a contractual obligation to deliver 18 KC-46 tankers to the service on time. Testing conducted in 2016 found a series of “category one” deficiencies, including where its boom scraped the surface of the aircraft being refueled. The testing also found that the tanker is not detecting when it is missing the receptacle, making it impossible for a KC-46 pilot to communicate that the receiving aircraft has potentially been damaged, the USAF said. While the USAF still believes that Boeing will fix these deficiencies in time to deliver the first KC-46 in late spring of 2018 (with a contractually mandated “required assets available” deadline for 18 tankers following in October), the service did not commit to accepting the aircraft from Boeing if the problem was not fixed, and at this point the timeline for resolving the issue is yet to be determined.

September 21/17: The head of the USAF’s Air Mobility Command has revealed that deliveries of the KC-46A tanker from Boeing will likely take place next year, and it remains unknown whether the firm will meet the “required assets available” milestone scheduled for October 2018. Speaking at the annual Air, Space and Cyber conference near Washington DC, Gen Carlton Everhart said that the service had discovered severe flaws on the tanker, known as “category 1 deficiencies”. Among the most glaring, the tip of its boom has on occasion struck receiver aircraft outside their refuelling slipways. Unless Boeing resolve the issue quickly it could delay a scheduled 1 December delivery.

September 14/17: Boeing expects to deliver its KC-46A tanker to the US Air Force by December, but the service branch expects that this schedule will slip into spring 2018. Brig. Gen. Donna Shipton, Tankers Directorate program executive officer said that the manufacturer has made “steady progress, just slower than planned” to complete Federal Aviation Administration certifications and flight tests. In recent months, Boeing had projected first deliveries in March and later August of this year before its most recent target date of December. The USAF plans to buy 179 KC-46 tankers through 2027. Eventually, the service branch expects to replace 455 aging KC-135 Stratotankers and KC-10 Extender tankers in the fleet.

July 31/17: Electromagnetic testing of the KC-46A Pegasus tanker has been completed by a joint team involving Boeing, the USAF, and the Naval Air Systems command, moving the aircraft closer to its first delivery. Testing took place at Naval Air Station Patuxent, Md. electromagnetic pulse laboratory and the Benefield Anechoic Facility at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif, which aimed to assess whether the aircraft could safely operate when confronted by the electromagnetic fields generated by equipment like radar. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in March had deemed the tests as one of the two key risk factors that could keep Boeing from meeting its delivery goals. However, Boeing has stated that the timing of the electromagnetic tests would not push back other key milestones and that the company still intends to deliver the first KC-46A this year.

June 12/17: Delivery of KC-46A tanker aircraft to the USAF has been pushed back until Spring 2018,according to service officials.Manufacturer Boeing had initially scheduled the first deliveries for this September, but this has now been pushed back while the manufacturer acquires airworthiness certifications and complete a flight test program for the plane. The delay is not expected to add addition costs to the taxpayer.

June 2/17: A KC-46 Pegasus tanker aircraft has entered the Benefield Anechoic Facility (BAF) at Edwards Air Force Base to undergo testing. The tests in question are integral in order to demonstrate that the tanker meets Federal Aviation Administration certification requirements and Defense Department electromagnetic environmental effects requirements for systems. These tests include shielding effectiveness, emission control and high intensity radiated fields. The BAF is the largest anechoic chamber in the world, and provides a location where electronic warfare tests can be conducted without radio frequency interference from the outside world.

May 5/17: Boeing has reached an important milestone in bringing its KC-46 tanker programcloser to serial production, announcing that it now has has a total of six units ready for its testing program. The newest, of the planes, which is the second to be produced under a low-rate production order, conducted its first test flight on April 26, and future testing will be largely focus on ensuring that the tanker can stand up to electromagnetic fields—radars and powerful radio towers are capable of scrambling aircraft electronic systems if they are not carefully shielded. Boeing intends to eventually produce as many as 179 KC-46 tankers for the USAF.

March 29/17: Boeing has received a $59 million contract modification to continue production for the USAF’s KC-46 tanker aircraft. The deal will see the company provide interim contracting support, a temporary service conducted in lieu of organic capability for a predetermined time. The deal allows Boeing to defer investment in all or part of required support resources. Work is expected to be complete by March, 2018.

February 23/17: Boeing is taking some suppliers to court after they sold mislabeled chemicals that caused the maiden flight of the KC-46 tanker to be delayed by a month. Able Aerospace Adhesives and AlfaKleen Chemical Labs, both from California, are being sued in the sum of $10 million or more for the mix up, whose incorrect chemical damaged components in the jet’s refueling system, and time was lost by Boeing in order to to replace those damaged parts. The liquid provided was certified to meet MIL-PRF-680 Type III certification; it was, however, actually more acidic than required.

January 30/17: Boeing has won a $2.1 billion contract for the provision of 15 KC-46 aerial refueling aircraft to the US Air Force. The contract, awarded on Friday, is in addition to the initial $4.2 billion contract awarded by the USAF to develop and test the aircraft, and an earlier $2.8 billion award for 19 planes. So far, the fixed-price contract has incurred cost-over runs of $2.4 billion, including a recent $201 million after-tax charge that Boeing announced on Wednesday.

January 26/17: It seems likely that the KC-46A aerial tanker will not meet its aggressive delivery schedule, with manufacturer Boeing stalling deliveries to the USAF until late 2017. Boeing had already moved its delivery schedule from March to August. The revelations were found in an annual report by the DoD’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation, which stated “execution of the current schedule assumes historically unrealistic test aircraft fly and re-fly rates.”

November 18/16: Boeing is eager to sell its KC-46A aerial refueling tanker to India. The Indian Air Force has yet to procure a capability to refuel its C-17 and P-8I aircraft, and New Delhi has eyed up the Pegasus to fill such a role. A laborious search has been underway to fill a six multi-role tanker capability soon to be vacated by their aging IL-76 aircraft. Earlier attempts to procure Airbus A 330 MRTT never came to fruition.

September 23/16: The US State Department has cleared the sale of four KC-46A aerial refueling tankers to Japan in what is estimated to be a $1.9 billion deal. All aircraft will come equipped with Northrop Grumman’s AN/AAQ-24(V) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system. Tokyo first announced its intention to purchase the new tankers last October, with the recent approval from the Pentagon moving it closer to becoming the aircraft’s first foreign customer for manufacturer Boeing.

September 22/16: Gen. Carlton Everhart, head of the mobility command of the USAF has said that the number of KC-46 tankers the service is set to procure by 2028 are not enough. 179 units of Boeing’s latest tanker will be delivered; however between 2028 and 2035, no KC-46s are scheduled for delivery, leaving a capability gap. To remedy the issue, Everhart suggested that the flying branch embark on a study this year for a new KC-Z aerial refueling tanker that will enter service in 2035, as well as looking into the possibility of developing a “KC-Y” tanker to fill the procurement gap.

August 22/16: Last week ended on an extremely good note for both Boeing and Lockheed Martin after the companies were awarded major multi-billion contracts by the USAF. For Boeing, an impressive $2.8 billion award was granted on Thursday as part of the low rate initial production of the KC-46A following the tanker’s Milestone C decision earlier this month. 19 aircraft will be produced alongside spare parts, engines and refueling pods. However, this was astronomically dwarfed on Friday when Lockheed Martin was handed a $10 billion deal for all future orders of the C-130J Super Hercules production program as well as any foreign military sales for the aircraft.

August 15/16: After a long wait, the KC-46A tanker has been cleared for production. The Milestone C approval was awarded by US Under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, Frank Kendall, following a series of stringent refueling tests of various USAF and Navy aircraft. Contracts are expected to be awarded to Boeing within the next 30 days for the first two low rate initial production lots, totaling 19 aircraft.

August 12/16: A long awaited low-rate initial production decision for the KC-46 tanker is to be made by the end of the month. Secretary of the USAF Deborah Lee James informed the media of the upcoming meeting “We believe that the aircraft has met all of the wickets that are required to meet milestone C, but of course that remains to be seen, so I’ll say stay tuned on that.” Flight testing of the aircraft wound up in July following a number of hardware and software fixes to the plane’s boom following aerial refueling problems.

August 9/16: Ground has been broken on the new $44 million KC-46A Pegasus sustainment campus at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma. The facility will be responsible for all the maintenance, repair and overhaul operations required for the tanker. The first KC-46A are expected to roll into Tinker in 2018.

July 25/16: Boeing has announced the latest in an ongoing saga of cost overruns with the company taking a $393 million hit on the KC-46 tanker program. Well published issues such as the fault with the aircraft’s refueling boom have resulted in delays to the aircraft reaching an important program milestone prior to initial production. The charges are to be formally announced on July 27 and brings the total value of penalties to almost $1.9 billion. Don’t worry Boeing, the next round of drinks are on us.

July 20/16: Following the refueling of an A-10 Thunderbolt, the KC-46 has completed the last in a series of in-flight refueling tests necessary before its Milestone C production decision. A selection of Navy, USAF and USMC aircraft were chosen including the C-17, F-16, F/A-18 and AV-8B. The Milestone C decision to begin low-rate initial production is expected in August.

July 15/16: A KC-46A fitted with its brand new modified boom has successfully managed a mid-air refueling of a C-17 with the previous axial loading issues no longer present. The testing was carried out on July 12 and the USAF also refueled an F-16 on July 8. Refueling attempts with the F-16 earlier this year were successful, although a higher than expected axial load on the boom was detected. The higher load was again present during the initial attempt with the C-17 which necessitated installation of hydraulic pressure relief valves in the boom.

July 12/16: “Bypass surgery” has been carried out on the KC-46A to fix problems with the the flying boom on the tanker. A hardware fix has been implemented by adding two bypass valves to lighten the load on the boom. Boeing describing the modification as similar to that used on the US Air Force’s current KC-10 tankers.

June 6/16: Setbacks to the KC-46A tanker program have been compounded as Boeing has admitted that a software solution to fix the load issues on the flying boom was not robust enough and the company will have to modify the hardware itself. The plane was initially aiming to have a low-production order to deliver 18 tankers by next August. Issues arose during refueling trials with larger aircraft such as the C-17 military transporters which caused unacceptable stress loads along the axis of the boom.

May 31/16: Following close on the heals of the F-35’s delay in achieving initial operational capability (IOC), the KC-46A tanker will miss its scheduled Spring 2017 delivery to units. Instead, deliveries have been rescheduled for late summer or early fall of next year. The KC-46 tanker program was already on a tight trialing schedule as part of its Milestone C demonstration in June, but will now be pushed back until August.

May 9/16: Boeing has announced that they have developed a hardware and software fix for the KC-46A aerial tanker, allowing it to pass fuel to C-17 aircraft. The company encountered problems regarding a boom axial load issue during an earlier test to refuel the C-17, causing a setback to the already delayed flight test program. A “milestone C” decision on low rate production by the Pentagon is now expected in June after initially planned for April and now May.

April 29/16: April 29/16: Legislation being considered by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) could see the last external link of the USAF’s F-117A Nighthawk fleet sent to the scrap yard. Retired since 2007, a fleet of the pioneering stealth aircraft have been kept in special climate controlled storage hangers in the event they were ever needed again. Now, Congress is considering removing those mothballed aircraft and having them scrapped and gutted for hard-to-find parts.

April 28/16: The forth and final test aircraft of Boeing’s KC-46A tanker program has made its maiden flight. While not kitted out for aerial refueling, the 767-2C aircraft will be used to conduct environmental control system testing for the program. The arrival of the latest tanker comes as Boeing scrambles to complete a “milestone C” review by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). A favorable review will unleash additional funds needed for the program, including a seven tanker production order, which the manufacturer had already begun producing out of its own pocket.

April 13/16: Despite development setbacks and a recent Milestone C demonstration hiccup, Boeing believes that it can deliver 18 operational KC-46 Pegasus tankers within six months instead of the original 14. The plan has been labelled “optimistic” in a new report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). While the GAO notes that most of the issues have been amended successfully, the recent problems seen in the aircraft’s centerline drogue system and wing aerial refueling pods may make this optimistic projection nothing but wishful thinking.

April 5/16: The otherwise fast pace of the KC-46A’s aerial refueling demonstration phase has started to run into difficulty. Testing on refueling of Boeing’s C-17 heavy cargo lifter has resulted in higher than expected boom axial loads, caused by two large aircraft flying in line. This bow-wave effect has subsequently caused the system to indicate that the loads were too high to begin passing fuel. Subsequent delays caused by the issues have resulted in scheduled trials of the A-10 attack aircraft being pushed back, and any further issues may impact a low-production rate decision due to be made at the end of May.

March 24/16: The Defense Contract Management Agency has expressed its “low confidence” in Boeing’s ability to deliver the KC-46A on time. Delivery of the tanker to the USAF is expected by August 2017 and is currently in the process of undergoing its Milestone C Demonstrations. Despite this, the agency now believes Boeing can only deliver the 18 KC-46As by March 2018, and there is a possibility that the new date might not be achievable either.

March 7/16: Boeing’s second KC-46A aerial refueling tanker has made its first flight. The aircraft will be used to test mission system avionics and exterior lighting before moving onto sharing the air refueling effort with the first KC-46. With a second fully configured tanker, Boeing can move through “receiver certification” for 18 aircraft types a lot more quickly. At present, the KC-46 has already demonstrated functionality with the Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 and refueling from a Boeing KC-10.

February 26/16: Despite a successful start to the KC-46 Milestone C demonstrations, Boeing is still under pressure to keep to its tight window to have 46 of the tankers operational by August 2017. The original schedule is at present eight months behind after a number of setbacks, and leaves little room for error until the delivery deadline. While funding of the program and technical difficulties are not a contributing factor, it’s feared that the Air Mobility Command (AMC) won’t have sufficient time for the 767-2C-based tankers to declare initial operational capability on schedule.

February 24/16: The KC-46 is halfway through its six aerial contact tests as part of the program‘s “Milestone C” demonstrations. The tanker has now successfully demonstrated all three of its major fuel systems after being successfully topped up by another KC-10 aircraft. The February 16 test follows the refueling of a F-16 and F/A-18 over the last number of weeks, and keeps the program right on track for a low-rate initial production decision in May. The three remaining tests will involve probe-and-drogue testing with a US Navy AV-8B Harrier II jump jet, followed by boom refueling of a Fairchild Republic A-10 and Boeing C-17.

February 16/16: Testing of the refueling capabilities of the KC-46 tanker has hit another target with the successful refueling of an F/A-18 fighter. This follows its first ever refueling flight on January 24, where it successfully refueled an F-16. While the first test utilized the tanker’s refueling “boom,” a rigid, telescoping tube that an operator on the aircraft extends and inserts into a receptacle on the receiving aircraft for fuel transfer, the F/A-18 test was the program’s first usage of the KC-46’s hose and drogue system. Located on both the plane’s wing and centerline, the hose and drogue system enables the KC-46 to refuel smaller aircraft such as the F/A-18 with up to 400 gallons of fuel per minute. All tests are part of the program’s Milestone C demonstration before a low-rate initial production decision is made later this year.

February 11/16: An Israeli news source has reported that the US government has cleared the sale for two of Boeing’s newest KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to Israel via the security assistance package. The Pentagon had originally put a pause on selling new aircraft to Israel, initially offering them older models. However, Israel has been insisting on the latest multi-mission tanker with the deal only approved upon the completion of the nuclear deal with Iran. The tanker sale could have become a point of contention for Tehran as its specs allow for a range of 7,350 miles with in-flight refueling. With an average price tag of $188 million each, the addition of Israeli system modifications will see each aircraft cost a quarter of a billion dollars.

January 26/16: The USAF and Boeing have reached an important milestone in the development of the KC-46 tanker after it successfully carried out a mid-air refueling of an F-16 jet. Prior to the refueling, both had checked a number of test points during the flight, with a successful demonstration necessary before Boeing can enter the plane into low rate production. The USAF has ordered 176 of the tankers to replace their KC-135 Stratotankers with the first eighteen of the tankers needed to be operational and ready to go by August 2017.

October 26/15: In a not unexpected decision, the Japanese Defence Ministry has opted to buy three KC-46A Pegasus tankers, marking the first international sale of the aircraft, which is still in development. The three new aircraft will bolster the JASDF’s fleet of four KC-767s, with each of the new aircraft thought to value $173 million. The KC-46As are slated for fielding in 2020, with the Boeing bid fending off competition from Airbus’ A330 MRTT. Elsewhere in the region, South Korea selected the Airbus design in July, signing a contract for four A330-MRTTs.

October 23/15: The KC-46A Pegasus tanker EMD-1 development aircraft has arrived at Edwards AFB for two weeks of work, including Ground Effects and Fuel Onload Fatigue tests. The latter involves learning more about how the aircraft operates when taking on fuel from another tanker, such as a KC-135 or KC-10, while Ground Effects testing collects data to incorporate into the aircraft’s simulator. The other development aircraft (EMD-2) deployed its refuelling boom for the first time in October, with EMD-1’s maiden flight in September.

October 12/15: The KC-46A Pegasus tanker has deployed its refuelling systems for the first time, including its boom, hose and drogue systems. The tanker performed its first flight in September, following a delay in August. Boeing is working towards an initial operating capability – which will see 18 KC-46A and support available for operations – by August 2017.

October 9/15: Two Air Force pilots have been cleared to fly the KC-46A Pegasus tanker, which performed its first test flight in late September. The pilots will be used for military certification of the aircraft, which is also required to pass FAA regulations. The Air Force is eventually scheduled to receive 179 KC-46A tankers under a contract awarded to Boeing in February 2011; the fixed-cost nature of the contract means that Boeing has been forced twice to absorb development costs, with the Air Force’s costs capped at $4.9 billion.

FY 2015

September 28/15: A fully-configured KC-46A tanker completed its first flight on Friday, a month later than scheduled owing to the chemical mix-up in early August. The program is a year behind schedule, the first flight is a rare positive sign for a program hit by cost spikes and schedule delays, with Boeing scheduled to deliver 18 aircraft in August 2017.

September 18/15: With Airbus walking away from the competition earlier this month, the Japanese Defense Ministry has reportedly selected the Boeing KC-46A to supply the country’s next generation refuelling tanker. Price negotiations are now scheduled, with the number of tankers the Defense Ministry plans to procure not yet determined. Boeing lost out in South Korea to the Airbus A330 MRTT in July.

September 17/15: The first KC-46A tanker is expected to fly on 25 September, following a year-long delay. The trouble-hit tanker has become a headache for Boeing, which has been absorbing increasing development costs through a firm-fixed contract signed in February 2011 which capped Air Force costs at $4.9 billion. The most recent setback resulted from an accident involving the insertion of chemicals into the aircraft’s refuelling system in early August, pushing the tanker’s schedule back by a month.

August 19/15: The mistake earlier this month involving the accidental insertion of chemicals into the fuel system of the KC-46A tanker has officially delayed the aircraft’s first flight by a month. The tanker will now see its first flight in late-September or early October, with the program’s original timetable calling for this flight to have taken place last year, with this pushed back to April and then again to late August, before this latest setback.

June 10/15: NAVAIR has been slamming missiles into the side of its KC-46 tankers as part of Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division survivability testing at the Weapons Survivability Laboratory. The tests used – among other sensors – ten high-speed cameras to capture the impact of the test missiles, themselves specifically designed to inflict maximum possible damage to the aircraft. The Air Force intends to buy 179 of the tankers to replace approximately a third of the current tanker fleet, which consists principally of KC-135 Stratotankers.

April 24/15: Tinker Air Force Base (Oklahoma) has been named as one of four potential locations to base the Air Force’s fleet of new KC-46A refueling tankers, alongside Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base (North Carolina), Westover Air Reserve Base (Massachusetts) and Grissom Air Reserve Base (Indiana).

Jan 26/15: Flight test. Boeing conducted a flight test from Payne Field in Everett, Washington. The four-hour flight was uneventful, but well-documented.

Dec 10/14: spares. Boeing is awarded a not to exceed $84.5M undefinitized contract action modification (P00054) to previously awarded contract FA8625-11-C-6600 for 4,880 production support equipment items and 6 production spare parts. Work will be performed at Seattle, WA, and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2016. $9.5M in FY14 aircraft procurement funds and $32.2M in FY15 aircraft procurement funds are being obligated at the time of award.

Dec 03/14: wiring. Boeing Dennis Muilenburg told investors during a conference organized by Credit Suisse that wiring problems that had led to delays and charges (q.v. Sept 17/14) were now “resolved and closed out.”

Dec 01/14: Training. The USAF intends to finalize its Maintenance Training System (MTS) RFP in January 2015. The draft, released back in September, is found under solicitation IDN-KC-46-MTS.

Nov 24/14: Personnel. The Air Force Personnel center announces that the aircrew of 41 officers and enlisted members from the active force, Reserve and National Guard have been selected to staff initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E).

Nov 19/14: Schedule. The USAF publicly admits what KC-46A program watchers already know: Boeing is essentially out of schedule margin to deliver the 767-based KC-46As on time by 2017. The USAF is still describing the contract as “achievable,” but so many things have to go right that this isn’t a smart bet for outside observers. The USAF won’t really say anything else until disaster is certain, though, because the admission will make the service look bad (q.v. March 4/11). Sources: Reuters, “US Air Force sees challenges on Boeing KC-46 tanker program”.

Oct 16/14: Delays. Boeing finally admits that the KC-46A’s program schedule will have to be changed. They don’t know how many milestones will need adjustment, but they’re still holding to the idea that they’ll have 18 KC-46As delivered by August 2017.

Can they avoid proving Airbus’ March 4/11 prediction that Boeing would deliver late? It’s hard to see how Boeing’s on-time promise adds up now, given significant GAO and DOT&E concerns that the testing program as proposed is too compressed and can’t be executed (q.v. April 11/14, Sept 17/13). Boeing gets to try convincing Pentagon acquisition officials with an official submission early in 2015, and the USAF will then conduct its own “schedule risk assessment” to examine Boeing’s assumptions.

Most ways of speeding up programs involve spending more money, though that tends to have diminishing returns past a certain point. The program’s official cash reserve is expected to run dry in March 2015, but the USAF’s costs are capped, so it’s likely that Boeing will wind up spending more private funds on KC-46A development. Sources: Bloomberg, “Boeing Seeks Revised Schedule for U.S. Aerial Tanker”.

FY 2014

Sept 17/14: Flight delay. First flight for the KC-46A is in question due to the same wiring bundle technical issues that forced Boeing to take an additional $272 million Q2/14 charge on the program (q.v. July 23/14). USAF spokesman Ed Gulick:

“We are disappointed with Boeing’s current KC-46 production challenges and their inability to meet internal production milestones, but we do not see anything of great concern and are confident they will overcome the issues,” said Gulick in a statement to Puget Sound Business Journal. “The KC-46 program’s technical and cost performance are on-track; Boeing has met every contractual requirement to date.”

The baseline 767 has about 70 miles of wiring in the design, and the need for redundancy in certain systems pushes the 767-2C to 120 miles, including shielding requirements and mandatory separation distances for safety reasons. The redesign will address these issues, but it sideswipes plans for concurrent installation in the 4 test aircraft currently under construction. Given the program’s known issue with compressed test schedules (q.v. April 11/14), they had better be ready by April 2015. Sources: Aviation Week, “First Flight for KC-46 Tanker Platform Slips Further” | Puget Sound Business Journal, “Air Force ‘disappointed’ in Boeing tanker delays; issues cost Boeing millions”.

Pease has apparently been the preferred alternative since May 2013, owing to its location in a region of high air refueling receiver demand and successful ANG-USAF partnership. This announcement follows the required environmental reviews. Sources: Pentagon NR-409-14, “Pease Air National Guard Base selected to receive KC-46A Pegasus aircraft”.

“We bid the EMD (engineering manufacturing and development) contract for the tanker aggressively, with zero margin, with planned profitability in the production phase. Despite our disappointment in encountering these challenges, the issues are well understood, and no new technology is needed to solve them…. We have a wet fuel lab, a lighting lab, those have all been put in place to de-risk the program. We have a wet lab where we are running fuel through pumps and valves to validate that on the ground.”

July 14/14: Cost. The KC-46A development phase could end up costing Boeing more than expected. That may concern Boeing executives, but the USAF won’t pay any more and doesn’t care:

“Defense Undersecretary Frank Kendall told reporters late on Sunday that Boeing was performing “satisfactorily” on the KC-46 tanker program, but several events – including water damage caused by a sprinkler malfunction at the company’s Everett, Washington plant – meant costs were higher than expected.”

Boeing says that they’ll be able to cut costs with their testing approach. We’ll see. Sources: Reuters, “AIRSHOW-Boeing may face higher than expected costs on KC-46 tanker”.

June 30/14: South Korea. Boeing confirms that they’ve formally offered South Korea the KC-46A tanker being developed for the USAF, rather than the KC-767 model that’s already in service with Japan and Italy. They tout the KC-46A’s quick-conversion main deck cargo floor, but in the face of North Korea’s WMD arsenal, and ability to target ROKAF bases with missiles, they make a point of mentioning that:

“Unique among tankers, the KC-46 can operate in chemical, biological and nuclear conditions, features cockpit armor for protection from small arms fire, and can also operate from a large variety of smaller airfields and forward-deployed austere bases.”

June 4/14: Infrastructure. The Ross Group Construction Corp. in Tulsa, OK wins a $17.5 million firm-fixed-price contract with options, to built the KC-46A Fuselage Trainer Flight Training Center and the Fuselage Trainer at Altus AF, OK. Option 4 for sidewalks and landscaping, and Option 5 for additional concrete parking stalls, are exercised at time of contract award. Altus AFB was recently chosen as the KC-46A’s main training base (q.v. April 23/14), and already operates in that capacity for the KC-135 fleet.

The estimated completion date is Oct 5/15. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with 7 received by the US Army Corps of Engineers in Tulsa, OK (W912BV-14-C-0015).

May 29/14: Infrastructure. MEB General Contractors in Chesapeake, VA wins an $8.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for construction services to alter the KC-46A apron fuels distribution system and supporting facilities at McConnell AFB, KC, and to relocate fuel vents/valves at the 3-bay hangar and 2-bay hangars.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 military construction budgets. Work will take place at McConnell AFB (KC-46A MOB1), with an estimated completion date of Dec 3/15. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with 2 received. The US Army Corps of Engineers in Kansas City, MO manages the contract (W912DQ-14-C-4010).

Flight Simulator

April 23/14: Basing. The Pentagon announces that McConnell AFB, KS will be is the KC-46A’s active duty-led MOB1 Pegasus main operating base. McConnell won because swapping in 36 KC-46As for 44 KC-135s involved the lowest military construction costs, and the base is located in a high-demand area. McConnell was also seen as “an ideal central location for the new KC-46A Regional Maintenance Training Center.” It beat Fairchild AFB, WA (2 KC-135 Sqns), Grand Forks AFB, ND (1 KC-135 Sqn), and Altus AFB, OK, all of whom will continue to operate KC-135s.

By default, Altus AFB, OK will continue in its FTU tanker training role, which it already performs for the KC-135. Advantages to keeping it in a training role include co-location with both tanker and heavy receiver aircraft for training purposes, and “considerably fewer” new construction requirements vs. McConnell. Altus will begin receiving KC-46A planes in 2016.

The Air National Guard MOB2 base (q.v. Jan 9/13) remains undecided, and will be picked in summer 2014. It will be 1 of Forbes Air Guard Station, KS (whose chances have probably dropped); Joint-Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ; Pease Air Guard Station, NH; Pittsburgh International Airport Air Guard Station, PA; and Rickenbacker Air Guard Station, OH. The winner will begin receiving planes in 2018. Sources: Pentagon, “Air Force Announces Bases to House New Tanker Refueling Aircraft”.

“The KC-46 program has made good progress to date—acquisition costs have remained relatively stable, high-level schedule and performance goals have been met, the critical design review was successfully completed, and the contractor is building development aircraft. The next 12 months will be challenging as the program must accomplish a significant amount of work and the margin for error is small. For example, the program is scheduled to complete software integration and the first test flights of the 767-2C and KC-46. The remaining software development and integration work is mostly focused on military software and systems and is expected to be more difficult relative to the prior work completed [which is generally on schedule]. The program’s test activities continue to be a concern due to its aggressive test schedule. Detailed test plans must be completed and the program must maintain an unusually high test pace to meet this schedule. Perhaps more importantly, agencies will have to coordinate to concurrently complete multiple air worthiness certifications. While efficient, this approach presents significant risk to the program. The program office must also finalize agreements now in progress to ensure that receiver aircraft are available when and where they are needed to support flight tests.”

The GAO and the Pentagon’s DOT&E group continue to believe that Initial Operation Test & Evaluation should be pushed back 6-12 months, in order to train aircrew and maintenance personnel and verify maintenance procedures. The USAF isn’t convinced yet, and knows that this move would delay the entire project for a similar period. Furthermore, the testing schedule itself is so concurrent that any problems found during test are almost certain to create delays to the program as a whole. One technical area that could still bite them involves “lingering instability in…. the centerline drogue system and wing aerial refueling pod,” but Boeing hopes to fix that before flight testing begins.

Finally, as of December 2013, the original $354 million program reserve budget has just $75 million (21.1%) left, leaving the program at risk of running out before testing begins. As long as the USAF doesn’t change the design, however, that’s Boeing’s problem.

The KC-46 Tanker program comes in for praise in a couple of areas. One has to do with the “should-cost” method for the final product, which will reportedly save $6.8 billion over the total program, with $6.4 billion listed as already realized. The other area that drew praise was the program’s use of all 4 best practices for development programs: (1) identifying key product characteristics; (2) identifying critical manufacturing processes; (3) conducting producibility assessments to identify manufacturing risks; and (4) completing failure modes and effects analysis to identify potential failures and early design fixes. Boeing should be motivated to do all that, because their contract makes them fully responsible for any fixes required in early production aircraft.

Costs remain almost identical to initial estimates, so far. The bad news is that test boom production has been delayed by almost a year due to design changes and late parts, but Boeing hopes to have it ready in time for initial KC-46A flight testing in January 2015.

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. The KC-46A program’s revised totals are reflected in the article’s charts, and the USAF has worked hard to protect the program. What’s interesting is the program’s schedule. It hasn’t been changed officially, but Air Mobility Command isn’t giving an official Initial Operational Capability date.

Previous years had listed budgets for spares, but those have effectively been revised. A contractor service agreement for the initial planes will see also spares bought as part of the procurement budgets, until the USAF takes over all maintenance itself.

Jan 16/14: Industrial. Boeing has begun assembling the 4th and final KC-46A test aircraft, and says that the program remains on track to deliver the initial 18 tankers to the Air Force by 2017. According to the current schedule, the 1st flight of a KC-46 test aircraft will take place at mid-2014 without its aerial refueling systems, followed by the first flight of a full KC-46A tanker in early 2015.

The first delivery of a production aircraft to the Air Force is planned for early 2016, but of course that depends on things going well during testing. Official reports to date have been skeptical, so no matter how things turn out, someone is about to be proved wrong. Sources: Boeing, “Boeing Starts Assembly of Final KC-46A Test Aircraft”.

Nov 5/13: Infrastructure. URS Group Inc. in Mobile, AL receives a $13 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery contract for architect-engineering services to support USAF KC-46 beddown in the continental United States. The 767 is closer in size to the KC-135, which means that it needs fewer infrastructure changes than the A330/ KC-45.

There will still be facilities and features to build (q.v. FBO.gov, Oct 2/13). Estimated completion date is Nov 14/18, with work location and funding determined with each order. Bids were solicited via the internet, with 57 received by the Army Corps of Engineers in Mobile, AL (W91278-14-D-003).

Oct 22/13: Industrial. Boeing announces that assembly of the 3rd aircraft and 2nd boom are underway. They sound confident that manufacturing of the initial batch of 4 aircraft remains on track to be completed by Q3 2014.

This would be good news for their USAF client, and would also help the company make its case in South Korea (q.v. Aug 7/13), where parliament is about to review whether to proceed with a competition for 4 tankers to be delivered in 2017-19. Sources: Boeing, Oct 22/13 release.

Oct 2013: Basing. Public hearings scheduled at the end of the month in Kansas and Oklahoma are postponed on October 11 because of furloughs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the government shutdown. As of Oct 23, a new date for the hearings had not yet been released. Meanwhile the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) and the US Army Corps of Engineers are preparing infrastructure work: AFCEC | Industry Day | Sources Sought.

FY 2013

Design finalized after CDR; State of the program reports; Sequester threat; Basing competition; Training aids picked.

KC-46A and B-2
(click to view full)

Sept 17/13: Testing. KC-46A program executive Gen. John Thompson offers a bit of clarity regarding testing plans. The first 4 planes will be split between the commercial 767-2C baseline, which is set to fly in January 2014, and 2 fully converted KC-46A tankers, which won’t fly until June 2015. Civil certification is an important precursor to the military supplemental certification (q.v. May 31/13), and the 767-2Cs will eventually become KC-46As to support initial operational test and evaluation.

Thompson sounds very confident about the intensive testing schedule, but then, he needs to. Past GAO and DOT&E reports have flagged it as a program risk (q.v. Jan 17/13, Feb 27/13), and have even called the test plan “not executable” (Jan 17/12). Sources: NDIA Magazine, “Newly Designed KC-46 Aerial Refueling Tanker to Undergo Strenuous Testing”.

Sept 4/13: Boeing announces that the USAF has validated the final design elements of the KC-46A, concluded that it meets requirements, and frozen the plane’s configuration. That clears the way for production and testing.

Design is set.

Aug 7/13: South Korea. Yonhap reports that South Korea may acquire 4 aerial refueling tankers by 2019. It seems to be at the discussion level rather than a firm decision. If it proceeds, Boeing’s KC-46A and Airbus Military’s A330 MRTT are seen as the logical contenders, and the 2019 date makes the KC-767 a viable possibility.

The A330’s challenge is that, unlike Australia, South Korea’s zone of action doesn’t really need the A330’s range and size. That will make the extra expense problematic. It’s also worth noting that South Korea already has significant defense relationships with Israel’s IAI. That could create an opening for IAI’s much cheaper K-767 MMTT option, which is also on offer to Singapore. Sources: Yonhap News, “Air Force to acquire 4 aerial refueling tankers by 2019”.

July 3/13: Sub-contractors. Fleet Canada Inc. in Fort Erie, ON receives its 1st order from Boeing, for sub-assemblies of the KC-46A Camera and Boom Fairings. The contract is issued as part of Boeing’s industrial offset requirements for various Canadian defense buys, including the C-17A airlifter and CH-47F Chinook helicopter. Fleet Canada.

June 26/13: production. Boeing announces that production of the first aircraft has begun. The USAF’s Critical Design Review (CDR) will start in July 2013, as announced last year. Beyond that, the company is forecasting the following milestones:

First aircraft assembly: Nov. 2013-January 2014

First flight: 2015

First delivery: 2016

Delivery of the first 18 aircraft by August 2017

June 16/13: Exports. Boeing told reporters that Boeing is engaged in talks with several export prospects in Asia and the Middle East, for a total of 20 potential units. The company’s defense and civilian arms are working together to be able to make the aircraft available for sales abroad by 2017. Bloomberg | DoD Buzz.

May 31/13: Certification process. Boeing will seek FAA certification in 2 phases: first there is one for the commercial 767-2C aircraft, then a supplemental one for the military modifications to the commercial aircraft.

In March 2012, the GAOlisted the fact that Boeing planned to pursue some parts of these 2 certifications in parallel as a risk factor. John Howitt, the program deputy manager, told AIN that this is addressed with joint technical planning and work, even though the 2 certifications are separate from an administrative perspective. Sources: AIN.

May 1/13: Training. Berkshire Hathaway company FlightSafety Services Corp. in Centennial, CO wins a $78.4 million fixed-price-incentive-firm and firm-fixed-price contract to design, develop, and build the KC-46 aircrew training system, including delivery of courseware and simulator-based training systems. FlightSafety will design and manufacture the KC-46, Boom Operator, and Part Task Trainers at its 375,000 square foot simulation facility in Oklahoma; the first device is scheduled for delivery in February 2016.

FlightSafety is no newcomer to this role, with operations at 15 U.S. Military bases that include Flight School XXI; Training systems for the KC-10 Extender, C-5 Galaxy, C-17 Globemaster, AFSOC’s HC-130P Combat King, and the V-22 Osprey tiltrotors; and Contractor Logistics Support for the T-6 JPATS and T- 37/38 trainers. The KC-46A contract pays $1 million initially, with the rest to be paid over time, including additional production and operations options that could raise its value beyond $78.4 million. Warren Buffett will be glad to hear that.

Work will be performed at Broken Arrow, OK and St. Louis, MO and is expected to be complete by 2026 if all options are exercised. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition, with 5 offers received by USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WNSK’s Simulators Division (FA8621-13-C-6247). See also USAF | FlightSafety International.

April 17/13: Sub-contractors.ITT Exelis announces a contract from Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) to supply its anti-jam N79 CRPA (Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna) GPS antennas, for use with Raytheon Navshield and Advanced Digital Antenna Production equipment on the KC-46A. Work will be performed in Bohemia, NY.

April 13/13: Restructure at peril. USAF AMC commander Gen. Paul J. Selva reiterates the KC-46A’s #1 priority status for the Air Force, and warns about the effects of restructuring this contract:

“…because we have a firm fixed-price contract for the development of that airplane, if we allow ourselves to get into the position where we don’t have the funds to pay for the initial development of the airplane, that contract gets reopened…. We’ll pay more…”

Probably. Boeing bid hundreds of millions of dollars below development cost to win KC-X, but 2 years into the contract, the US military’s ability to switch to Airbus is more limited. They’d have to delay their #1 priority program, while creating a lot of opposition in Congress. There are creative ways to charge more in total, and Boeing would be well placed to negotiate a few in any restructuring.

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage. For KC-X, it’s pretty much steady as she goes, hewing more or less to previous plans.

Total reductions from FY 2014-2017 are around $182 million compared to FY 2013 plans, but a fixed-price contract is going to have to reach the agreed total regardless. Current budgets show just $3.173 billion allocated for RDT&E from FY 2011 – 2018, but the USAF is near-certain to owe $4.7 billion for the EMD phase.

April 7-10/13: Basing. As the USAF prepares to make decisions about where to base its KC-46s, communities are competing. The catch is that there are really 2 initial competitions, and they’re mutually exclusive (q.v. Jan 9/13 entry). Grand Forks Herald | Lawton Constitution | Wichita Eagle.

Feb 27/13: GAO Report.The GAO’s annual in-depth look at the KC-46 program is out. The good news is that after 28% ($1.4 billion) in development work, the program costs and schedule haven’t changed much. The CDR is still scheduled for July 2013, albeit with some risks. The USAF and Boeing are evaluated as managing the project well, and have added the ability to track progress toward key aircraft performance goals.

Concerns fall into 3 areas: financial reserves, weight, and software. The GAO is one of several agencies that think flight testing and certification will need to take about 6 months longer, and the boom refueling system is changing a bit, but those are secondary risks right now.

The development contract set aside about 7% ($354 million) in reserves, and 2 years into a 7-year development program, 79.6% of those reserves have been spent, leaving less than $72 million to cover an expected $3.5 billion in work. Some of the issues driving this spending aren’t resolved yet. As we explained above, the government’s costs won’t change if this problem isn’t solved, but GAO is worried about technical problems growing and creating schedule issues.

Projected weight is now expected to exceed the KC-46’s target weight, and each pound above target reduces fuel payload by 1 pound. Extra weight could also affect operating requirements for takeoff, mission radius, and landing. The program has a mitigation strategy in place, and further weight reduction initiatives can create tradeoffs in areas like durability and cost.

Software is a good news/bad news story. They’ve cut total software development by 40%, but code reuse will be less than planned (52% vs. 76%), which means new and modified software has doubled to 48% from 24%. That means more work overall and more testing, though program officials are claiming that schedules won’t be affected.

Feb 22/13: KC-135Rs retiring. After more than 50 years of service and 22,500 flying hours, the 1st operational re-engined KC-135R Stratotanker retires from service, and heads to AMARG’s “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ. KC-135R #61-0312 first flew as a KC-135A on Aug 14/62, and was re-engined into a KC-135R on June 27/85.

This plane’s retirement is budget-driven, as 1 of the 16 scheduled KC-135 retirements in FY 2013. On the other hand, the KC-135 Program Office at Tinker AFB, OK used the Fleet Health Analysis Tool to pick the aircraft. Joey Dauzat, 97th Maintenance Directorate KC-135R sortie generation flight chief, discussed KC-135 usage patterns, which will become much more relevant if something happens to the KC-X program:

“[KC-135Rs] assigned to Altus Air Force Base fly approximately 1,820 sorties per fiscal year, which averages out to 91 sorties per aircraft…. Flight hours are approximately 7,030 hours per fiscal year, which averages out to 351 flight hours per aircraft. All sorties are required to have [refueling booms] on them, so every sortie flown is a boomer training sortie.”

Feb 2/13: A USAF presentation to Congress says that if sequestration takes effect, the KC-46A program may need to be restructured, along with the F-35 fighter and MQ-9 Reaper Block 5. Flight International.

Feb 2/13: High Usage. The USAF is planning to use KC-46As more intensively than their KC-135 counterparts. That makes sense on several levels: (1) As a way to save money by flying the more expensive-to-operate KC-135s less; (2) As a way to build in surge capability for the KC-46As if the KC-135 fleet has a problem; and (3) As a pre-conscious recognition that KC-X is probably the USAF’s entire future aerial tanker fleet.

The KC-135’s average of 2.5 aircrews per plane will rise to 3.5 aircrews for the KC-46A, adding about 60 full aircrews to the force, and costing about 11.2% more for KC-46A lifetime operations and maintenance because they will be flying more often. Total operations and support costs are now predicted to be approximately $103 billion, but the $10 billion or so rise would be offset by any savings from fewer flights of the more expensive KC-135Rs. USAF.

Higher usage planned

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The USAF has bought 2 767-200s for live fire testing, and is planning the survivability assessment, including LAIRCM tests. They do have one major concern:

“The ALR-69A RWR [radar warning receiver] was selected as Contractor Furnished Equipment by Boeing; however, integration and performance on the KC-46A are high risk. DOT&E recently completed an assessment of the ALR-69A RWR on the C-130H1 and assessed it as not effective, but suitable, in a separate classified report dated October 22, 2012. Not only do these effectiveness problems require correction, but the system is required to improve its geo-location capabilities as compared to the demonstrated C-130J capability.”

DOT&E also has some technical issues with the overall testing plan. The 750 hours of operational testing over 5.5 months can establish effectiveness, but getting 76% confidence of suitability (maintainability) would need 1,250 hours. This was also pointed out in last year’s report, and it will need to be worked out one way or another.

Jan 9/13: Basing.The USAF announces KC-46A initial basing candidates, while stressing that losing bases will continue to operate KC-135s. The USAF doesn’t mention this, but the FTU training and MOB1 operating base awards are mutually exclusive: you can win one, but not both. There’s no overlap at all with the ANG’s MOB2 locations, so those have to be separate. Candidates include:

Oct 16/12: Industrial. Boeing opens the KC-46 Boom Assembly Center on schedule at Boeing Field in Seattle, WA. Boom assembly marks the program’s shift to production from design activities, and the 1st fly-by-wire boom is scheduled to enter testing during Q3 2013 at Boeing Field’s System Integration Labs. Boeing.

FY 2012

Basing plans; Preliminary Design Review; Industrial decisions.

‘Paper airplane’ risks?
(click to view full)

Sept 12/12: Industrial. Boeing opens System Integration Lab 0 at Boeing Field, 3 weeks ahead of schedule. SIL 0 will be used to test commercial avionics and software for integration into the KC-46A Tanker. Another 3 SILs will open at Boeing Field and a 5th will open in Everett, WA by the end of 2013.

Boeing Field is also slated to house the program’s Boom Assembly Center, and the Finishing Center. The Finishing Center is scheduled to open in late 2013, and will be used to install military hardware and software onto the commercial 767-2C airframe. Boeing.

July 27/12: Sub-contractors. Eaton Corp. announces a supplementary contract from Boeing, which adds the aerial refueling pump system, the aerial refueling boom nozzle, and various airframe and aerial refueling system valves and fuel/ actuation components. See also June 18/11 entry.

June 13/12: Industrial. Boeing VP and KC-46 program manager Maureen Dougherty talks about moves Boeing is making since the announcement that it was closing the Wichita, KS facility. That closure creates added risk, but Boeing is sticking to its estimates and trying to offset it.

Three systems integration laboratories (SILs) will be located at Boeing Field in the southern part of Seattle, WA, but they won’t be operational until fall 2012. Flight testing, a full lab replica of the entire KC-46 fuel architecture, and the finishing center’s 2 workstations will also be there. They’ve also begun wind tunnel testing with Cobham regarding the shape of the plane’s refueling pods, a move that underlines the developmental nature of key items. Aviation Week.

May 14/12: Initial bases. The USAF decides that the KC-46A’s formal training unit (FTU) and first main operating base (MOB 1) will be led by active duty units, while MOB 2 will be led by an Air National Guard (ANG) unit. That may be one way to ease the transition. Many ANG pilots fly for commercial carriers, and many of those carriers already operate 767s.

Exact basing decisions will be based on location, capacity, environmental issues, and cost. The USAF plans to table a preferred base and shortlist for the active-duty FTU and MOB 1 in December 2012, so the environmental impact grind can begin and the base can begin receiving aircraft in FY 2016. The ANG-led MOB 2 is expected to get its preferred base and shortlist in spring 2013, and receive aircraft in FY 2018. USAF.

May 8/12: Sub-contractors.BAE Systems announces a contract from Boeing to develop and build the KC-46A’s Actuator Control Unit (ACU), which processes commands to control the aerial refueling boom.

Engineering and development work on the program will be conducted in Endicott, NY with manufacturing at the BAE Systems facility in Ft. Wayne, IN.

March 21 – April 27/12: PDR. Boeing’s KC-46 Tanker completes its Preliminary Design Review (PDR), confirming that it seems to meet system requirements and is ready to proceed with detailed design. In addition to the successful PDR, the Boeing KC-46 team has completed a System Requirements Review, Integrated Baseline Review, a PDR for the base 767-2C freighter, and Firm Configuration Reviews for the 767-2C and the KC-46A Tanker.

The program’s next major milestone is a Critical Design Review that will take place in the summer of 2013, and demonstrate that the KC-46A is ready for manufacture. Boeing.

PDR

March 27/12: Engine contract. Boeing formally signs a contract with Pratt & Whitney’s Military Engines division for up to 368 PW4062 engines (179 planes + 10 spares). It’s a private sub-contract, however, and the parties won’t discuss its value. Suffice to say that the cost of modern jet engines makes this a 10-figure contract, once all engines are ordered.

March 26/12: GAO Report. The US GAO audit office releases report #GAO-12-366, “KC-46 Tanker Aircraft: Acquisition Plans Have Good Features but Contain Schedule Risk.” It cites “broad agreement that KC-46 schedule risk is a concern,” and especially cites overlap among development and production work. The USAF disagrees, citing FAA certification for the First Flight of the baseline 767-2C in June 2014, and promising 60% of FAA certification and military developmental flight testing before Milestone C production approval in August 2015. On the other hand, the GAO has usually been right about these risks, and the USAF has been wrong – most recently in the F-35 program.

Key information has been fed into other parts of this article, but this excerpt deserves especial attention:

“According to program officials, a change in system requirements, although unlikely… could increase the Air Force’s exposure to additional costs… the biggest risk to the KC-46 program is the Department’s ability to minimize changes to the contract… DOD has demonstrated limited ability to maintain stable requirements and limit changes to program technical baselines on previous complex weapon system programs, and that minimizing such change is essential to the success of the KC-46… any engineering or contract changes affecting system requirements or having the potential to impact program cost, schedule, and performance baselines must be approved by the Air Force Service Acquisition Executive in consultation with the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force… Program officials maintain that… pricing will likely stay intact as long as the contract is not opened to negotiate modifications. […]

Boeing has to correct any deficiencies in the KC-46 discovered during the development program… on the four development test aircraft and all production aircraft… at no additional cost to the government. In addition, there is a special contract provision that requires each aircraft to demonstrate a certain fuel usage rate before the government accepts the aircraft. If any aircraft burn fuel above this rate, Boeing is required to propose a corrective action at no cost… if Boeing cannot meet the required usage rates, there are contract provisions allowing for a decrease in the amount paid to Boeing.”

March 7/12: Air Mobility Command chief General Raymond Johns at a House Armed Services Committee hearing:

“We continue to execute the program to cost and schedule baselines we established, along with Boeing.”

The Air Force is currently developing requirements for the first two KC-46 bases, and expects to approve basing criteria in Spring 2012, identify candidate installations in Summer 2012, select preferred and reasonable alternatives by the end of calendar year 2012, and make final decisions in 2013.”

The Air Force expects aircraft deliveries to these first 2 bases in FY16. The next round of basing decisions is planned for FY14 at the earliest.

Feb 13/12: RDT&E budget. The Air Force asks for $1.8 billion in RTDE funds for fiscal year 2013 as part of the President Budget. This would be the peak of planned research and development spending on the program over 2011-2017, at 27% of the total. Air Force budget justification [large PDF].

Air Mobility Command (AMC/CC) has not yet determined an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date, while Full Operational Capability (FOC) is expected approximately 24 months after IOC. The Air Force schedule as of December 2011 plans to reach Milestone C in Q4 FY15. These plans have been incorporated into the program briefing, above. See next entry below on the various risk assessments made about that schedule.

Jan 17/12: DOT&E doubters. When Airbus lost the contract, they placed 2 markers. One was that Boeing couldn’t deliver to their claimed price, and that has proven true (vid. Nov 27/11 entry), though their bid remains lower than Airbus. The other was that Boeing wouldn’t be able to make the delivery schedule, and the US Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation’s FY 2011 Report adds weight to that belief. The report backs their position up with hard numbers, and bluntly concludes that “the KC-46 test program is not executable.”

To support that claim, DOT&E notes that military testing with past large aircraft averages under 30 flight hours per plane, per month. The Boeing/USAF TEMP schedule plans 42 FHPM, for flights that are “more specialized, higher risk, and more resource-intensive than FAA certification.” Worse, their planned 15% re-fly rate for military test items is even farther off; the 737-derivative P-8A, which is considered to be a successful program, has a current re-fly rate of 45%. Correcting to past averages adds 4 months to the 17-month testing schedule. DOT&E believes that even then, the 750 operational flight test hours aren’t enough, and 1,250 would be more realistic. That takes the testing schedule from 21 to 25 months.

Other serious omissions cited include no time for correction of discrepancies and/or deficiencies discovered during developmental testing, and no provision for the refueling boom control algorithm changes and/or procedural modifications that have been required for other new aerial refuelers. The report doesn’t say so, but the net takeaway is that Boeing is very likely to be late with its promised 2017 delivery. The USAF responded to Gannett’s Air Force Times with partial disagreement:

“The Air Force respects the opinions of the Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, but does not agree with its assessment that the KC-46 test program is ‘not executable’… The Air Force does acknowledge that Boeing’s overall KC-46 program schedule is considered medium risk, in part due to its aggressive flight-test schedule.”

Jan 4/12: Wichita lineman, farewell. Boeing confirmed it’s going to close its Wichita, KS plant by the end of 2013. Wichita is currently the base for the company’s Global Transport & Executive Systems business, and its B-52 and 767 International Tanker programs. The facility also provides support for flight mission planning and integrated logistics.

Some of the 2,160+ Wichita jobs will be moved; others will be cut, beginning in Q3 2012. The move rankles hard in Kansas, as Boeing touted the jobs and state economic benefits if they won the tanker contract, and secured hard lobbying from state and federal representatives. Who now feel somewhat betrayed. The company counters that it isn’t entirely betraying those promises, as it spent more than $3.2 billion with approximately 475 Kansas suppliers in 2011, making it the 4th largest state in Boeing’s supplier network. That prominence is not expected to change, and the 24 Kansas KC-46A suppliers will still be providing elements of the aircraft as originally planned.

Once the Wichita plant closes, engineering work on the KC-46A will be placed at the Boeing facility in Oklahoma City, OK, instead. Work to convert 767s to KC-46 tankers will now be performed right on the 767 production line in Puget Sound, WA, copying a model first used with the 737-derived P-8A Poseidon sea control aircraft. Future aircraft maintenance, modification and support work will be placed at the Boeing facility in San Antonio, TX, which currently handles KC-135 and KC-10 maintenance and upgrade work. Boeing | NY Times | Congressman Mike Pompeo [R-KS-4, not happy].

Boeing closing its Wichita plant

Nov 27/11: EMD Overage rises again? Maybe. Media reports tout a figure of $500 million over maximum cost, but a breakdown says otherwise. The Pentagon’s latest Selected Acquisition Report reportedly gives a program manager’s estimate of $5.3 billion, which would actually be $1.2 billion over the KC-X EMD phase’s original target cost. Up to $4.9 billion, however, the government pays $600 million more, and Boeing pays $400 million. Costs above that are all Boeing’s responsibility. Boeing’s current estimate is $5.1 billion, which would raise its liability to $600 million (400 + all 200 overage). If the government program manager is right, Boeing’s liability rises to $800 million (400 + all 400 overage), while its overall bid cost to the US government for development plus production remains below Airbus’.

The SAR report in question appears to be an advance copy, as there has been no public release yet. It allegedly says that KC-46A engineering, manufacturing and development are “progressing well with no significant technical issues.” Given the figures above, that must be a relief to Boeing’s management. As for the Pentagon, it doesn’t have to care which EMD Phase figure is correct, since their costs are now known: $4.5 billion ($3.9 billion + $600 million). Above $4.9 billion total split costs, they aren’t paying for anything, and the estimate spread shows that there’s almost no chance of coming in under $4.9 billion. Bloomberg News.

FY 2011

Sept 13/11: Sub-contractors. AmSafe Industries, Inc. announces that it will supply 9g-rated barrier nets, and stationary and movable smoke barriers, specifically designed for the USA’s new KC-46A 767 aerial tankers. AmSafe is a global leader in this sort of technology; they’re also known as the makers of Tarian cloth armor that can stop enemy rockets.

Deliveries of the KC-46A internal barrier systems are expected to begin in 2015, and could be worth more than $45 million for all 179 planned aircraft.

Sept 13/11: Sub-contractors. BAE Systems’ Attendant Control Panel (ACP) for Boeing’s new civilian 737 interior will be migrating to the KC-46A. The touch-screen, networkable panel is designed to control a variety of interior functions such as lighting, drinking water, and waste tanks. Prices were not revealed. Work on the KC-46A tanker touch-screen cabin control systems will be conducted in Johnson City, NY, and Fort Wayne, IN. BAE Systems.

The stereoscopic Remote Vision System, which will display the refueling operation on both standard and 3-D screens, apparently drew on internal experience that included the Mars Rover, UAVs, and a remotely-operated bomb-disposal robot. Overall, the article cites ruggedization of components, and information fusion from the wide array of sensors and datalinks, as the 2 key engineering challenges. TSAS, which emerged from the latter challenge, is even being tested on Android OS smartphones and tablet computers.

Aug 24/11: IBR. The U.S. Air Force completes an interim baseline review (IBR) for the KC-46A.

IBRs provide mutual understanding of risks inherent in contractors’ performance plans and management systems, and outline what resources are needed to achieve program goals. This IBR had to be complete within 7 months of contract award, which would be Sept 24/11. The next major milestone is the Critical Design Review, which is scheduled to happen by September 2013. Aviation Week.

July 14/11: Politics. Sen. John McCain [R-AZ], the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, sends a letter to the Pentagon that calls Boeing’s KC-X EMD bid “completely unacceptable”. His issue is that any increases between KC-X’s EMD target cost (revealed as $3.9 billion), and the $4.9 billion ceiling cost are split between Boeing (40%) and the USAF (60%). The net result is that Boeing’s lowball bid costs taxpayers an extra $600 million beyond their bid, and Boeing itself $700 million. Even that reported bid price still leaves Boeing lower than Airbus’ overall price, however, which was $2 billion higher for the combined EMD phase and subsequent production of 13 initial jets.

On the other hand, the practice of lowballing bids in order to secure contracts, then raising the real costs afterward, is correctly seen as toxic. The result is grave difficulty in budget planning, as other programs are sacrificed or compromised in order to pay for widespread overcharges.

In fairness to Boeing, it’s worth going back to the original contract bids. Reports right after the February 2011 award had EADS Airbus bidding $3.5 billion for the EMD phase, while Boeing had bid $4.4 billion for the EMD phase alone. That means the USAF knew of about $500 million beyond its target costs from the outset, for an aircraft that had not been fielded or tested yet, and involved more development work than EADS’ offering. That means added risk of future increases, but the swiftness of these cost revisions strongly suggests that they were known beforehand. Actual costs for Boeing’s EMD phase are currently $5.2 billion, and the amount of the cost breach tends to lower confidence in Boeing’s ability to meet the contract schedule, a point that was also raised by Airbus after the award.

The question is whether Sen. McCain’s opposition will have any effect at this point in time. That may seem unlikely, but then, it also seemed unlikely when he opposed the original KC-767 lease deal post-9/11. McCain release | Bloomberg.

June 24/11: Costs.Bloomberg reports that Boeing’s KC-X bid is going to be $300 million over the KC-X cost ceiling, which it reveals as $4.9 billion. Because it’s a fixed-price contract, Boeing is solely responsible for those extra costs.

According to Bloomberg, a USAF statement from Lt. Col. Jack Miller said that the USAF was told after the contract award that: “it proposed a ceiling price that is less than its actual projected cost to execute the contract… There is no legal barrier that prohibits pursuing a below-cost proposal strategy and Boeing’s met all rules.”

Recall that the Feb 24/11 contract award said only that Boeing’s Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase contract was “over $3.5 billion.” Subsequent reports had Boeing’s EMD phase bid at $4.4 billion, vs. EADS Airbus’ $3.5 billion. On the other hand, the total bids for EMD + 4 planes, and another 14 planes of initial production, was reportedly $20.6 billion for Boeing, vs. $22.6 billion for Airbus – who called Boeing’s bid an “extreme lowball.” If Bloomberg’s report is true, we now have an idea what Boeing was willing to pay, in order to prevent Airbus from setting up a production line in America, and to keep the 767 alive as a military export and commercial option.

June 22/11: After months of refusing to divulge details, Boeing announces major suppliers for its KC-46A team, and confirms the tanker’s fuel capacity at 212,000 pounds, with an offload rate of 1,200 gallons per minute. The KC-46 Tanker team will include more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states and support approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs. Major suppliers have been added to the article’s industrial teams section.

June 19/11: Sub-contractors.Raytheon announces orders from Boeing supply digital radar warning receivers, and digital anti-jam GPS receivers, for the KC-46 tanker. Its AN/ALR-69A is an all-digital radar warning receiver designed to work with both fighters and large aircraft, and its technical architecture will speed up signal identification amidst cluttered environments.

The digital anti-jam GPS receiver, with its multielement controlled reception pattern antenna, integrates both reception and high performance digital anti-jam capabilities into a single product.

June 18/11: Sub-contractors. Eaton Corp. announces a Memorandum of Agreement with Boeing to supply hydraulic and fuel distribution subcomponents, cargo door electro-mechanical actuation systems, hydraulic system components, electrical sensing and control devices, and cockpit controls over the life of the KC-46A program.

June 7/11: KC-46A details emerge.Flight International reveals more about the KC-46A, while outlining what we still don’t know, 3 months after one of the largest contracts in USAF history.

For starters, it’s based on a cargo variant. At over 188,000 kg/ 414,470 pounds, the 767-2C’s maximum takeoff weight is about 20,000 pounds heavier than the 767-200ER, making it even heavier than the stretched 767-300ER that Boeing rejected for Round 1. The 2C is slightly stretched itself, at 6.5 feet longer than the 200ER, with a cargo floor and door. Beyond this, the winglets, 787-based cockpit large display system, auxiliary fuel tanks and provisions for tanker systems, and more powerful Pratt & Whitney 4062 turbofans are all known changes from the 200ER.

To find out if Boeing has made any other changes from the basic 767-200ER, outsiders will reportedly have to wait until Boeing completes a USAF system requirements review, and an integrated baseline review.

May 6/11: Sub-contractors.Marshall Aerospace announces that they had been picked in 2010 to supply the KC-46A’s integrated Body Fuel Tanks, and that Boeing’s win has resulted in an initial contract for the design, certification and manufacture of an initial batch of development tanks. They expect production orders for “more than 650” tanks to follow over a 15 year period, in order to equip the KC-X program’s 179 aircraft, with a total value exceeding GBP 100 million.

Marshall Aerospace has previous experience producing integrated Body Fuel Tanks for Boeing, including the 747, 777, and the 737-derivative P-8A Poseidon programs. Boeing has refused to discuss its Round 2 partners, but Marshall appears to have elbowed Round 1 partner Sargent Fletcher aside for this role.

March 11/11:Aviation Week outlines what we still don’t know about the KC-46A. We still don’t know the actual development phase price. We still don’t know the plane’s configuration, either, which makes it impossible to evaluate the likelihood that Boeing can deliver on time. Excerpts:

“Neither the U.S. Air Force nor Boeing have stated what exactly “over $3.5 billion” means for the KC-46A development contract… [Boeing tanker VP Jean] Chamberlain acknowledged on the company’s Feb. 24 telecon post-win that this is “concurrent development” meaning flight test and developmental activities are taking place as the first aircraft are being built…Thanks to the three-time restructured F-35 development program, the term “concurrent development” has become a bit of a dirty word among some in Pentagon circles… There are a few things we do know: Somehow Boeing is putting a digital 787 cockpit into an analog 767 aircraft and there is a modified KC-10 boom to meet the gallon-per-minute offload requirement. But, we don’t know what the design entails in terms of risk reduction on the platform or on the mission systems. Finally, we don’t even know officially that work has begun on this contract. Neither USAF nor Boeing will confirm.”

March 4/11: No protest. EADS North America chairman Ralph Crosby expresses disappointment at the press conference, but says that EADS could not have undercut that “extremely lowball bid,” submitted to keep Airbus from securing a US production site. The company “will not take any action that could further delay the already overdue replacement of the Air Force’s aging tanker fleet… Much is promised by our competitor, whom we congratulate. However, should they fail to deliver, we stand ready to step in with a proven and operating tanker.”

More precise figures come from the US AFA’s report of the conference:

“…Crosby revealed – based on an hour-long debrief from the Air Force last week – that the price difference between the companies’ bids was 10 percent. Boeing bid $20.6 billion and EADS $22.6 billion on initial development and initial production of their respective KC-46A and KC-45 tankers… He expressed doubt that Boeing will be able to deliver all 18 aircraft by 2017 as called for… because Boeing will not have its first flight-test-worthy KC-46A ready until 2015. [Crosby] also revealed that EADS’ estimated cost for engineering and manufacturing development on the KC-45 – which the company would have modestly revised from the existing design – was $3.5 billion, while Boeing bid $4.4 billion for EMD on its design, which has not flown.”

“Newspaper Les Echos published a small article four days after the contract award noting that the USAF’s decision on tankers will make it “very difficult” for Paris to purchase the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper unmanned air vehicle, which is competing against the EADS Talarion and a Dassault/Thales/Indra consortium offering the Israel Aerospace Industries Heron TP.”

Feb 28/11 – March 1/11: Debriefing session with EADS North America. Meanwhile, the government and Northrop Grumman/EADS still have not reached a legal agreement on the canceled KC-45 contract. Aviation Week.

KC-46A concept
(click to view full)

Feb 24/11: Boeing wins Round 2. The “KC-46A” win surprises many aerospace analysts, who expected an EADS win based on leaks that EADS had scored better in the USAF’s models, and expectations they could price their planes lower. The Pentagons says that both candidate aircraft met all required criteria, but Boeing’s adjusted price was over 1% less than Airbus’. That meant the USAF did not consider various “non-mandatory” bonus criteria, which could only have made a difference of up to 1%.

Note that these are adjusted prices. Rep. Norm Dicks [D-WA], for example, claims credit for successful pressure to change the USAF’s costing model from 25 years of expected fuel costs to 40 years, which he boasts cost Airbus “billions of dollars” in the respective calculations.

As a result, Boeing in Seattle, WA receives a fixed price incentive firm contract valued at “over $3.5 billion” for the KC-X Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase, which will deliver 18 of their KC-46A aircraft by 2017. The ASC/WKK at Wright Patterson AFB, OH, will manage this contract (FA8625-11-C600). A newly opened assembly line in Everett, WA will build the tankers, including all the military modifications to the airframe, right alongside commercial 767 airliners, rather than shipping 767s elsewhere for military modifications. This approach was pioneered by the 737-based P-8A Poseidon sea control aircraft program, and will now be extended to the KC-46A.

Feb 14/11: The Pentagon releases its FY 2012 budget request, which includes $877.1 million in development funding for the KC-X program. The FY 2011 request for $863.9 million is still in play as well, however, thanks to the 111th Congress’ failure to pass a FY 2011 budget.

The 112th session of Congress is dealing with the FY 2011 budget as H.R. 1, and could explicitly delete KC-X funding if its disagreements with the USAF run deep enough. The other option would be more passive, and involves continuing all FY 2011 spending at FY 2010 levels. A “2010 Redux” option would be a problem for KC-X, because that would give the program just $14.9 million to work with. On the other hand, a passive approach by Congress would allow to USAF to “reprogram” some funds from elsewhere into KC-X, whereas an explicit rejection would not.

Feb 8/11: Turbulence ahead for EADS. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports that Daimler plans to sell its stake in EADS when a consortium agreement expires in June 2012, in order to focus on its car manufacturing business. If they do, the move will have large ripple effects, which is why the news has provoked meetings at the highest levels of Germany’s government.

Daimler already dropped its stake in EADS from 22.5% to 15%, in a 2007 deal brokered by the government with a German bank consortium. Germany has since tried but failed to find a long-term German investor to take over the banks’ 7.5% stake, in order to keep the long term German-French shareholder balance at 22.5% each. The banks agreed to extend the current arrangement to 2013, and France’s Lagardere media group is looking to sell its own 7.5% stake at some point after 2012, but Daimler’s planned departure revives that issue of shareholder balance as a near-crisis. A German replacement firm with deep enough pockets, technical expertise, and enough of an interest in aerospace may not exist. Deutsche Welle.

Jan 31/11: WTO on Boeing. The World Trade Organization releases preliminary information its decision re: Boeing subsidies (DS 353), the other end of the trade dispute that has already seen a ruling concerning Airbus. The release took place to the 2 companies. A full public report will not be available for a couple of weeks – which matters, because accounts differ.

Boeing implies that the WTO rejected most claims, leaving only $2.6 billion in subsidies. They contrast this with the June 2010 decision that found $20.4 million in illegal Airbus subsidies: $15 billion in launch aid, $2.2 billion in equity infusions, $1.7 billion in infrastructure, and roughly $1.5 billion in R&D support, with $4 billion in illegal launch subsidies that must be restructured.

Airbus, in contrast, points to $5 billion of illegal subsidies to Boeing in this decision, with additional figures to be determined in later stages of this dispute, plus over $2 billion in illegal state and local subsidies that Boeing will receive in the future, and an expected WTO ruling that Washington State and the City of Everett must stop subsidizing Boeing. Airbus adds that they believe the WTO will find that Boeing subsidies were more distorting than Airbus’ loans, and float a $45 billion damages figure. Time will tell, but this sentence in Airbus’ statement is certainly clear:

“Taking the cases together, the WTO will be seen to now have specifically green-lighted the continued use of loans in Europe and commanded Boeing to end its illegal R&D cash support from NASA, DoD and the US taxpayers.”

Jan 27/11: Italy. The Italian Air Force’s accepts the 1st of 4 delayed Boeing KC-767A tankers at Pratica di Mare AB near Rome. This KC-767 is registered as MM 62229, and will now enter a series of evaluations and other activities before being placed into operational use. There have been a number of issues with Italy’s tankers, so their acceptance is important to Boeing. Flight International.

Jan 19/11: During in-flight testing between an EADS MRTT tanker plane destined for Australia’s RAAF, and a Portuguese air force F-16 fighter, the refueling boom loses 1 of its 2 stabilising fins, making the device uncontrollable. The incident resulted in the detachment and partial loss of the refuelling boom from the MRTT, and the pieces fell into the sea. Fortunately, the plane itself made it back in one piece.

Dec 13/10: Team EADS. Britain’s 1st A330 MRTT performs the type’s 1st fuselage-mounted hose-and-drogue aerial refueling dry contacts, using an F/A-18 Hornet fighter. Airbus Military. The 1st wet refueling took place on Jan 21/11, transferring over 6 tonnes of fuel at an altitude of around 15,000 feet, and at speeds from 250 – 325kt. AirTanker.

Cobham’s belly-mounted 805E FRU (Fuselage Refueling Unit) is part of the proposed USAF KC-45’s 4-point refueling system, which shares the 2 removable digital underwing hose-and-drogue refueling pods with FSTA aircraft, but also adds a fly-by-wire ARBS boom for UARRSI dorsal receptacles. Both the belly-mounted FRU and underwing hose-and-drogue refueling pods share the same modular architecture, and all 4 systems are controlled from the Remote Aerial Refueling Operator (RARO) console in the cockpit.

Dec 1/10: Delay. USAF Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford, the military deputy from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition says that the final KC-X award will take until 2011, instead of being announced in November 2010. The USAF release adds:

“Air Force officials have said the KC-X source selection process will continue despite a mistake in November, where a limited amount of identical source selection information was provided to both KC-X offerors concerning their competitor’s offering… The information concerned was limited to a single page of non-proprietary data on a CD that did not include any offeror-proposed prices… Air Force officials have analyzed the information that was actually accessed by one of the offerors and have taken steps to ensure that both competitors have equal access to this information.”

Nov 21/10: Breach. A USAF error sends the wrong documents back to EADS and Boeing, giving them material from the other firm’s bid, The data sent by computer disk reportedly included pricing information, and both sides did the right thing and contacted the USAF immediately. Defense News | The Telegraph.

Protoccol breach

Oct 19/10: Tanker analysis. Iris Independent Research releases their KC-X competition white paper, “9 Secrets of the Tanker War.” One entirely unsurprising conclusion: KC-X’s 179 planes are it, and there will be no similar-sized KC-Y or KC-Z buys for at least 2 decades, if ever.

Oct 6/10: No Antonov. The US GAO dismisses US Aerospace’s KC-X protest, leaving just Boeing and EADS. The core of the decision revolves around whether the bid was late, hence ineligible. The ruling that it was late offers an effective primer on bid delivery planning:

“In partially dismissing USAI’s protest, we concluded that, while many of USAI’s complaints were potentially relevant to the protester’s proposition that its messenger was understandably confused as to the location for submitting USAI’s proposal, such complaints did not support USAI’s allegations of intentional agency misconduct… it was USAI’s decision – not that of the Air Force – to have its messenger arrive at Wright-Patterson AFB entry gate 19B with less than an hour remaining before proposals were due; it was USAI’s decision not to seek advance agency approval for its messenger to be admitted to the AFB; and it was USAI’s decision not to confirm in advance the precise location of, and directions to, the building at which proposals were to be received. Based on our review of the protest allegations and the record submitted, we concluded that USAI’s allegations of intentional agency misconduct were insufficient to warrant further consideration…”

Oct 6/10: Team EADS. Airbus Military obtains A330 MRTT military certification from Spain’s Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Aerospacial (INTA), which follows the European Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) civil Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) awarded earlier in 2010. The first 2 A330 MRTTs conducted more than 280 flights as part of the certification process, in addition to another 170 by A310 demonstrator aircraft.

As one can see by the number of flights involved, certification is an under-appreciated roadblock in the military delivery process. Fortunately certification in one jurisdiction makes subsequent certifications either much easier or unnecessary, depending on a jurisdiction’s standards and decisions. The INTA certification clears the way for Airbus Military to deliver Australia’s KC-30As, later in 2010, but the USAF would insist on its own certification process. Airbus Military | Agence France Presse | Australian Aviation | The Australian | Le Figaro [in French] | Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

FY 2010

Round 2 RFP and bids. WTO dispute.

AN-70
(click to view full)

Sept 15/10: Early reports leak out that the WTO is about to find that Boeing’s aircraft have also been the recipients of illegal subsidies. Since Boeing had been pushing the subsidy point hard in Congressional debates, a finding of that sort would be significant. It will certainly make for a more difficult argument on Boeing’s part, both because the political argument becomes less clear, and because the USAF’s decision to exclude WTO issues from the competition becomes more defensible. Boeing remains on the offensive, arguing that:

“If today’s reports are accurate that some $3 billion of the EU’s claims were upheld by the WTO… the ruling… confirms that European launch aid to Airbus stands as the single largest and most flagrant illegal subsidy in the aerospace industry. Nothing in today’s public reports on the European case against the U.S. even begins to compare to the $20 billion in illegal subsidies that the WTO found last June that Airbus/EADS has received (comprised of $15 billion in launch aid, $2.2 billion in equity infusions, $1.7 billion in infrastructure, and roughly $1.5 billion in targeted research support). Nor are there seemingly any violations requiring remedy approaching the scale of remedy required of Airbus/EADS… Neither do the public reports suggest that Boeing’s traditional market based approach to financing new aircraft development will need to change; a distinct contrast…”

Sept 14/10: Team EADS. A pair of Australian KC-30A tankers hook up and transfer fuel at 1,200 gallons per minute through the A330’s boom. That figure meets the USAF’s maximum requirement, something Boeing has yet to do in the air. EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. also went on the offensive with regard to fuel economy:

“In any likely Air Force operational scenario, Boeing’s concept tanker will cost 15% to 44% more, measured on the basis of fuel burned per gallon of fuel delivered.”

“The proposal was late and by law we are not allowed to consider it. We are considering two proposals and U.S. Aerospace is not one of those being considered.”

The magazine adds that:

“According to an industry executive, the company’s messenger arrived at the Wright-Patterson AFB gate at 1:30 p.m. July 9 (30 minutes before the deadline) and was denied entry, given bad directions and told to wait by Air Force personnel. As a result, the Air Force stamped the proposal received at 2:05 p.m.”

On Aug 2/10, U.S. Aerospace filed a bid protest with the Congressional Government Accountability Office, citing “unreasonable” conduct by the USAF. The firm’s bid had reportedly revolved around an “AN-112” based on the 4-engine AN-70 turboprop transport.

July 13/10: Team EADS.The Hill reports that the KC-X bid cost EADS North America $75,000 in final printing costs alone.

July 9/10: Team Boeing. Boeing delivers its KC-X v2.0 bid. Its release mentions that its design will contain cockpit displays from the 787 Dreamliner, which may not be a change from the first round.

July 9/10: Antonov?!? US Aerospace announces that it has submitted a joint KC-X bid with Antonov at $150 million per plane, following SEC notification of an agreement with Antonov and intent to bid on July 1/10. That agreement would give US Aerospace lead contractor status and final American assembly rights only under a KC-X contract, while Antonov would be the technical lead and manufacture components.

Unlike the March 19-22/10 UAC/ IL-96 hoax, this report has much more backing behind its assertion of a bid. The question is whether it makes any more sense, or would even qualify under Round 2’s mandatory criteria. Reports indicate a bid based on the modernized AN-124-100 “Ruslan” super-heavy transport, which would offer heavy airlift options that beat the C-17 hollow, but terrible operating efficiency as an aerial tanker. Reports of a custom designed “AN-112” make even less sense, given the years-long development and certification timelines. Unlike Ilyushin, Antonov doesn’t even have a base civilian airframe in the right size category. Defense News may have the answer that explains the hype:

“…a May 24 SEC report filed by U.S. Aerospace signals it is in financial trouble. A number of factors “raise substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” the firm told federal regulators.”

July 8/10: Team EADS. EADS North America delivers its KC-X v2.0 bid, one day before the extended deadline, and highlights key members of its Round 2 industrial team. EADS.

July 8/10: WTO. The World Trade Organization has put off a ruling on the EU’s subsidy complaint against Boeing (case DS 316) from July 16/10 until mid-September 2010. As the Wall Street Journal put it: “While the panel is likely to find that the U.S. has provided improper subsidies, it isn’t known if the WTO will be as severe on Boeing as it was on Airbus.” Meanwhile, the delay leave EADS very exposed in the political battles over the US KC-X contract. The EU is unhappy:

“The time lag between this case, and the United States’ case against support to Airbus (DS 316) has constantly increased over the six years this dispute has been running and the gap is now at nearly a year. It creates the wrong impression that Airbus has received some WTO incompatible support, whereas Boeing has not. Only when we have received both panel reports will both sides have a more complete picture of the dispute… We now expect the Panel to issue its interim report in DS 353 without any further delay.”

EADS Airbus’ CEO Tom Enders said he was “surprised and disappointed” by “the last minute announcement of yet another delay,” and appears to question the capability of the WTO to play a meaningful role in the global trade order:

“We have said time and again that the complexity, interconnectedness and industrial significance of the Boeing and Airbus cases would strain the capabilities of the WTO. Since these cases were filed, the world has changed. In aviation, the previous duopoly marketplace is increasingly being populated by government-sponsored players, leaving Boeing and Airbus as those that, by any objective measure, benefit least from government support. The ongoing struggle of the WTO to address the world as it was in 2004 (the date the cases were filed) raises the question whether it can succeed in its basic mission to create a climate for a negotiated settlement on the basis of fair market rules in the interest of both the industry and the employees on both sides of the Atlantic.”

June 30/10: WTO. Boeing hails the public release of a World Trade Organization ruling on Airbus subsidies (case DS 317), which will be a lobbying point in the current KC-X competition. Airbus has its own take, of course, and the WTO also has a case involving Boeing – but it hasn’t ruled on that one yet. A columnist in Boeing’s hometown of Everett, Washington even thinks the ruling could ultimately help both Boeing and Airbus, which have seen state-owned competitors enter the marketplace in recent years. WTO | Boeing | Airbus | Everett Herald op-ed.

WTO ruling on Airbus unfair subsidies

June 7/10: WTO. Boeing teams with AgustaWestland in the US Presidential Helicopter competition. Finmeccanica’s subsidiary has produced several Boeing helicopters under license in England and Italy (WAH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinooks), and now Boeing will return the compliment with the AW101. The license will give Boeing full intellectual property, data and production rights, making its version of a Presidential AW101 bid a Boeing aircraft, built by Boeing personnel, at one of its U.S. facilities. This decision is likely to create several ripples. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute points out that:

“Boeing’s bid could create some embarrassing moments for both itself and Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin spent years arguing that the AgustaWestland airframe was superior… By the same token, Boeing is engaged in a bitter dispute with Airbus concerning European aircraft subsidies, and [the AW101 has received them]…”

June 7/10: Team Boeing. Finmeccanica subsidiary DRS announces a teaming agreement with Boeing for work on its KC-X “NewGen Tanker” offering. DRS will collaborate with Boeing on the console design and then manufacture the Aerial Refueling Operator Station (AROS), and will also provide the interconnect design and associated cable sets to integrate AROS into the Tanker. All this is contingent on a contract win, of course.

June 3/10: Team EADS. EADS says it has American partners for its KC-X bid, but won’t name them “because we don’t want to put them under pressure.” Defense News.

May 19/10: The House Armed Services Committee takes the first step toward introducing WTO subsidy rulings to the competition, as part of its recommended FY 11 defense budget (H.R.5136). The modified bill reportedly requires the Pentagon to submit an interim report, discussing the impact of government subsidies on the KC-X competition, at the instigation of Rep. Adam Smith [D-WA]. The implicit message in that name is lost on nobody. See: Congressional Quarterly | The Hill | Politico | bNet op-ed.

These bills would require the Department of Defense to consider World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions for military acquisitions. Specifically, they would require the Pentagon to add the cost of illegal subsidies onto the price of a competitor’s bid proposal, following a ruling by the WTO. The WTO has already ruled that Airbus’ aircraft were built using illegal subsidies. A ruling on Airbus’ complaint concerning Boeing is pending, but would not come in time to affect the KC-X competition.

May 12/10: Team Boeing. Rockwell Collins announces that it is part of Boeing’s Round 2 aerial tanker team, with negotiated terms to deliver the same flight deck technology it supplies for the 787 Dreamliner, along with the KC-767’s Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) systems, aircraft networks, and other electronics.

May 8/10:A Minneapolis Star Tribune article provides a glimpse into Boeing’s PR offensive on the ground. Part of it involves a trailer with simulators for the KC-767’s new boom, and associated fighters, for some members of the public.

Ralph Crosby, EADS NA
click to play video

April 20/10: EADS back in. EADS North America announces that it intends to submit a proposal for the KC-X aerial tanker RFP based on the KC-45 tanker, a version of the A330 MRTT/ KC-30B design that won the original contract. The US unit of the European aerospace giant plans to submit the proposal on July 9/10, the last day of the Pentagon’s extended deadline.

The company said it is continuing discussions with potential US partners, but apparently the European defense firm is willing to go it alone, if need be. The company reiterated its earlier promise to build a Mobile, AL manufacturing line for global A330F sales, and KC-X finishing work, if it gets the contract.

April 1/10: Boeing issues statement critical of Pentagon’s decision to extend the RFP deadline if EADS agrees to bid:

“We are deeply disappointed with EADS-Airbus efforts to further delay this vital warfighting program and tilt the U.S. procurement process in its favor. EADS-Airbus has been fully engaged in the competition for four years and was always expected to provide the vast majority of its team’s work content…We do not see a legitimate reason for EADS’s bid deadline extension request, and we believe an extension that favors any individual competitor does not further the goal of ensuring fair competition.”

March 31/10: A group of US senators sends a letter to President Obama criticizing EADS Airbus division for receiving “billions of dollars in illegal subsidies.” The senators urge the president not to extend the KC-X RFP deadline:

“Finally, having relied on illegal subsidies to buy market share in the commercial aerospace market, Airbus now seems intent on further using subsidized aircraft to significantly increase its present in the U.S. defense market. This is unacceptable. We urge you to move forward on the Air Force tanker competition without delay.”

March 31/10: Bid extension. The Pentagon announces that if EADS wishes to bid, they will grant a 60-day extension instead of the 90 days requested. This would move the deadline from May 10/10 to July 9/10. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell also said that:

“Given that this plane is long overdue, and we do not want its delivery date to slip later than it already has, we are prepared to compress our bid evaluation period to stay as close to the original award schedule as possible so as to still award the contract early this fall… [but we have no] willingness to change any of the plane’s military requirements or the way bids will be evaluated.”

March 22/10: Russians.A Reuters report suggests that John Kirkland, the Los Angeles-based attorney who told various news media that UAC would announce a joint venture and enter the bidding for KC-X, may have been the victim of a scam.

Kirkland sent Reuters copies of letters on what appeared to be letters on “OOO UAC” letterhead, saying that high-level Russian approval of a bid was imminent, but subsequent examination showed contained several grammatical mistakes in Russian. UAC vice-president Alexander Tulyakov drove the final stake in when he told Reuters that:

“John Kirkland is not a UAC representative and we have had no communications with him… We have had no discussions whatsoever with any party about the possibility of producing air tankers for the U.S. air force.”

March 19/10: EADS in, Russians in?!? EADS requests a 3-month extension of the May 10/10 bidding deadline, because it is re-considering a bid submission without Northrop Grumman. The firm’s main foothold in the American market is its successful UH-72A LUH helicopter program, but without an established A330F production line, EADS had previously considered its American base too shallow to handle a contract this big. The Pentagon is reportedly receptive to a bid extension, citing previous examples like BAMS UAV, VH-71 helicopter, Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) II, and LOGCAP IV, among others.

The same day, Russia’s state-owned United Aircraft Corp. reportedly drops a double-surprise. The first surprise is that the firm is supposedly set to sign a joint venture with a small American aerospace firm to market Russian-designed aircraft, including promises that the JV will be announced on March 22/10.

The second surprise is that the firm reportedly intends to bid a tanker version of its IL-96 4-engined, wide body jetliner for the KC-X competition. The IL-96 is civil certified, and can be fitted with Pratt & Whitney engines, but it faces significant disadvantages, despite a price tag that could be as low as half that of a base 767 or A330 airframe. The most prominent obstacle is that the key partner is a state-owned Russian firm. While relations are better than they were in Cold War days, the USA is a long way from trusting Russia as any sort of reliable ally – and the reverse is also true. Congressional opposition to any win would be measured on the Richter scale. Other issues include expected higher operating costs from a 4-engine jet, the low esteem in which Russian airliners are held, and the fact that under 50 IL-96s have been built so far.

March 11/10: As one might expect, political rumbles continue across the Atlantic, with veiled and not-so-veiled threats of a trade war, or retaliation in the defense field. EU release | Aviation Week Ares roundup | Defense News.

March 11/10: EADS out.Aviation Week reports that EADS did not feel confident enough yet in its American footprint, to bid for the KC-X project. Its main beachhead in the USA at the moment is the $3.5 billion UH-72A Lakota Light Utility Helicopter program, which is going well but is an order of magnitude smaller than KC-X.

March 11/10: Team Boeing. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. announces that they’ve come to terms as part of Boeing Round 2 KC-767 NewGen Tanker Supplier Team. Upon a contract award from the United States government to Boeing, Spirit will build the Boeing tanker’s forward fuselage section in Wichita, KS.

March 8/10: NGC out. Northrop Grumman has apparently bowed out of the KC-X v2.0 RFP, leaving Boeing as the only bidder. The move is not unexpected, given the requirements and the estimated $100 million cost to bid, but it will create longer-term political issues for the program. The European Union is already issuing rumbles about protectionism, and an early blast from Sen. Sessions [R-AL] may be indicative on the domestic front:

“The unjustifiable overhaul of the Request for Proposals – which went far beyond the narrow problems raised by the GAO – completely abandoned the idea of a game-changing tanker in favor of a smaller, less capable plane. Of the 14 major changes to the solicitation, 12 favored Boeing’s smaller, older aircraft. In the end, the process was skewed, and no one can fault a private company for declining to participate in a government competition engineered to guarantee its failure… American taxpayers… could now be on the hook for the most expensive sole-source contract in history.”

March 5/10: Team Boeing. Boeing announces its RFP v2.0 offering. The new 767 “NextGen” aircraft add a modified version of the new 787 Dreamliner’s flight deck, with its larger displays and other design improvements. Engines will still be Pratt & Whitney’s PW4062s, but the fly-by-wire refueling boom looks different, and so do the wings. Aviation Week attempted to clear up Boeing’s exact offering, but:

“Boeing officials declined to comment on whether the wings, the doors and floors and flaps were being pulled from other commercial models [DID: as in the previous KC-X entry]. They declined interview requests as well…”

The 3rd thing Boeing’s official release emphasized was a pointed reference to the flight control computers that may have been a major cause of Air France Flight 447’s A330 crash over the Atlantic in 2009, with all hands lost:

“The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.”

Feb 24/10: Final KC-X v2.0 RFP is out. Most of the changes made were narrow and technical, and do not change the structure of the competition. The need for a microwave landing system was scrapped, and Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures missile defense systems will now be provided by the government as a separate item, certain items had specifications defined more tightly, etc. Proposals will be due within 75 days of the request, and there will be another 120 days after that for government evaluation.

Price remains the key factor, based on the draft proposal’s weighting system. The development contract is a fixed price incentive deal, with the contractor responsible for 40% of any overruns up to 125% of the contract value, and all overruns beyond that. Production lots 1-2 are fixed price. Lots 3-5 will see a new price negotiated, with the contractor responsible for only the first 2.5% of price inflation. Re-negotiation would happen again for Lots 6-13, but this time the contractor would only be responsible for the first 1% of price inflation.

Feb 22/10: Dual buy? Flight International’s Stephen Trimble looks for clues to the funding behind a new lobby group called “Build Them Both.” As one might guess, the group favors a dual-source, accelerated buy contract for the KC-X competition, with both firms receiving contracts but annual orders being determined by production readiness, pricing, and the needs of specific theaters. This was the essence of the late Rep. John Murtha’s position.

Feb 8/10: Dual buy? House Appropriations Defense subcommittee chair John Murtha [D-PA], Capitol Hill’s #1 proponent of a KC-X split buy, dies of complications associated with intestinal surgery. A Washington Post blog reports that Rep. Norm Dicks [D-WA], one of EADS Airbus’ most avid foes on Capitol Hill, is likely to succeed Murtha as chair of the subcommittee, and North West Cable News asks the obvious question.

“…we are shooting to have the RFP out hopefully by the end of the month, if not early next month. We’re in the process right now of reviewing the comments that were provided… I think we’re still on schedule to get this out in the next few weeks. …no final decisions have been made yet about the RFP, but I think it is safe to say at this point that there will be changes to the draft… We’ve gotten feedback, some of it quite helpful. Some of – some of this we just have realized ourselves. And so I think the team is in the process of correcting mistakes and altering the acquisition strategy a bit, and that will be reflected in the final request for proposal which will likely go out in the – in the next couple or few weeks.

I would add one thing, and that is that whatever changes are being made should not be construed as any attempt to favor anybody. It is — what is being done is we are trying to make the RFP as fair and as transparent as possible, while at the same time providing the taxpayers with the best value for their money and the warfighters the best — the best plane to support their operations… we hope that when this happens that we will have a full and hardy and thorough competition between multiple bidders.”

“We also believe there is a strategic argument, as well as a political one, that supports buying both airplanes because there are simply different mission requirements. But the Pentagon is adamant that it will not split the order… Winning the contract is also critical to the Airbus strategy of establishing a commercial A330-200 production base in the US… Airbus pledged to build the A330-200F [in Mobile, AL] and expectations are that the A330P will follow. But no tanker contract, no US plant. And this is why we believe Boeing and its supporters are fighting so hard to block a tanker award to Northrop. This, we believe, is more important to Boeing than winning the tanker contract, though we also acknowledge Boeing wants the contract on its own merits.

“…The [A330] MRTT is running about 18 months behind schedule for delivery to launch customer Australia. About six months was due to customer change orders, according to the RAAF and EADS. The balance rests with developmental issues.

“…Because of the need for a 787 production Surge Line (see 787 discussion below), the current 767 line will be relocated to the aft part of the bay it now occupies. A Lean production line will be implemented, reducing unit costs by about 20%. Relocation begins this year and will be completed next year… If Northrop stays in, we still think Boeing will submit only a KC-767 proposal… We remain concerned that Boeing has yet to deliver the KC-767 to Italy, now some four years late. We are told problems remain with the centerline hose-and-drogue system… [and] that issues remain with the wing-mounted refueling pods, though Boeing says these have been fixed. Although Boeing intended to deliver the first of four tankers to Italy last year… that this still has not happened indicates all is not well. Since the US tanker is similar to the Italian tanker, we remain skeptical about the program… Boeing is still not forecasting any dates concerning these remaining milestones [for Italy].”

Dec 1/09: Northrop Grumman’s President and Chief Operating Officer Wes Bush sends a letter to Department of Defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics Ashton Carter. As written, it says, the terms of the KC-X RFP imposed a structure that, in Northrop Grumman’s opinion, favors smaller planes like Boeing’s, and:

“…places contractual and financial burdens on the company that we simply cannot accept… As a result, I must regrettably inform you that, absent a responsive set of changes in the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it cannot submit a bid to the department for the KC-X program.”

“The Department has played this right down the middle… [we] cannot and will not change the warfighting requirements for the tanker to give advantage to either competitor… The department wants competition but cannot compel the two airplane makers to compete.”

Alabama’s Republican governor Bill Riley has a different take:

“The Obama administration has corrupted the tanker selection process with a blatantly unfair competition… The question is why is this RFP so radically different than the one Northrop Grumman won last year?”

A final RFP is expected in January 2010, but each program has hundreds of suppliers across the USA. Refusal to submit would trigger a very large political battle in Congress, one focused on the acquisition process itself. It remains to be seen whether it is possible for a single-winner tanker process to successfully obtain American Congressional approval and funding for its choice, in the face of a transatlantic competitor whose American partners saw billions of dollars in concrete business snatched away, and a domestic heavyweight with its own deep supplier and congressional networks. Northrop Grumman’s Letter [PDF] | Agence France Presse | Bloomberg | NY Times | Politico | Reuters | Wall Street Journal | Aviation Week | Defense News.

Nov 25/09:Flight International reports that one of Australia’s KC-30Bs refueled a pair of Spanish EF-18A Hornet fighters at the same time, using its hose-and-drogue refueling system.

Nov 10/09: One of Australia’s KC-30B/ A330 MRTTs performs the 1st fuel transfers with its all-digital 905E hose and drogue system, using its left and right under-wing pods to transfer more than 9,200 lbs of fuel to a “NATO” (likely Spanish) F/A-18 fighter. The first of Australia’s 5 KC-30Bs will be delivered to Australia in mid-2010. EADS release.

Nov 2/09: The Lexington Institute’s Loren Thompson writes that the EADS/Northrop Grumman bid has become a question, rather than a certainty:

“Last week, one of the two teams competing to provide the Air Force’s future aerial-refueling tanker launched an unusual campaign to overturn the service’s strategy for buying the plane. Northrop Grumman and its European partner Airbus signaled that they don’t believe they have a plausible chance of winning under the proposed terms, and began building the foundation for a formal protest. What’s unusual about the move is that competitor Boeing hasn’t been all that happy with the revised tanker solicitation either, but Northrop has elected to pursue an aggressive strategy that is sure to anger its Air Force customer. Here’s why Northrop is willing to take that risk…”

Oct 29/09: Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] sends a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Pentagon acquisition czar Ashton Carter, and USAF Secretary Michael Donley, asking questions about the KC-X v2.0 source selection process. He asks about the use of fuel usage rates and construction needs, but not full probable lifecycle cost, in the cost calculations, asks if any of the requirements considered mandatory in Round 1 were discarded RFP v2.0, wonders if the pricing requirements in the draft RFP would “…not favor mostly smaller airframes, and asks how the proposed pass/fail rating can “provide for an assessment of relative developmental and integration risk among the offerings.”

The final v2.0 RFP was supposed to be released around the end of November 2009, but delays out to January 2010 are reportedly a possibility. Aviation Week.

Oct 21/09: Team EADS. An A330 MRTT equipped with the ARBS in-flight refueling boom passes fuel to an in-flight aircraft for the first time. A Royal Australian Air Force KC-30B flew a 4:30 test flight, with more than 3,300 pounds of fuel transferred to 2 Portuguese Air Force F-16s during 13 contacts. Other systems tested included the boom’s fly-by-wire stability and 3-D vision system. EADS | Australian Defence Magazine.

Oct 2/09: Sen. Jeff Sessions [R-AL] says he will introduce an amendment to the FY 2010 Senate defense spending bill (amendment 2610 to S. 1390, currently before the Senate Armed Services Committee). When introduced, it would block the use of funds for the U.S. Air Force’s KC-X competition, unless the service agrees to disclose pricing data about Boeing’s proposal in 2008 to rival Northrop Grumman, just as Northrop Grumman’s data was disclosed to Boeing after Boeing’ asked for an explanation of its loss. Sen. Sessions release | Aviation Week | See also Sept 29/09 entry.

Oct 1/09: KC-10. In a stunning upset, Northrop Grumman beats Boeing for a 10-year, $3.8 billion contract to service the global KC-10/KDC-10 tanker fleet. Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas built the planes, modified them, and had serviced them since their induction in the 1980s. By all accounts and metrics, service quality was high – which is why some analysts see the loss as symptomatic of deeper problems in Boeing’s relationship with the USAF.

FY 2009

Draft RFP 2.0.

KC-46A & B-1B
(click to view full)

Sept 29/09: Major procurement error. As legislators connected with Boeing push the USAF regarding the recent WTO ruling, Northrop Grumman puts out a statement of its own, citing issues with the process:

“Northrop Grumman continues to be greatly concerned that its pricing information from the previous tanker competition was provided by the Government to its competitor, Boeing. Access to comparable pricing information from Boeing has thus far been denied by the Pentagon. With predominant emphasis placed on price in this tanker re-competition and Northrop Grumman again proposing its KC-45 refueling tanker, such competitive pricing information takes on even greater importance. It is fundamentally unfair, and distorts any new competition, to provide such critical information to only one of the bidders. The company will continue to work with its customer to fully resolve this issue.”

The USAF had provided this data to Boeing after Boeing had lost, as part of the USAF’s requested debriefing. The Pentagon has dismissed Northrop Grumman’s claim on the basis that the disclosure to Boeing was in accordance with regulations, and that “the data in question are inaccurate, outdated and not germane” to the new bid, which is a different competition. Clearly, Northrop Grumman continues to disagree; if the impasse continues, the question may become whether the GAO disagrees during a future appeal. Northrop Grumman | Aviation Week | recent Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Protoccol breach

Sept 29/09: Alabama’s Press-Register puts out an editorial supporting a split-buy and speeded-up production, which legislators like House Appropriations Committee Chair John Murtha [D-PA] continue to support:

“With a defense contract potentially worth $40 billion at stake, expect both sides to fight over every clause and nuance they think might favor their opponent. Right now, Boeing and Northrop have 60 days to comment on the draft guidelines; this is only the first stage of the contest… By the time the lawyering and politicking are over, at least a few years will have elapsed. So here’s one more plea for a split contract.”

Sept 25/09: The USAF releases the KC-X v2.0 draft RFP, re-starting the competition. The KC-X Round 2 RFP remains structured as a “winner take all” competition, and retains its target number of 179 aircraft, will full-rate production of 15 per year beginning by the 3rd year (Lot 3 of up to 13). Each contender will provide a fixed-price proposal to develop and deliver 4 Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) planes, followed by the first 64 aircraft and necessary spares. It will also submit an upper limit on the price of the remaining 111 tankers, and 5 years of initial support.

Assuming that legal and political delays don’t get in the way, first production delivery is now planned for 2015, with Initial Operational Capability in 2017. More information on the RFP’s evaluation structure can be found in the section “KC-X RFP v2.0: The New Structure.”

Sept 25/09: The USAF’s last serving KC-135E aerial tanker touches down at Davis-Monthan AFB near tucson, AZ, after its final flight. All remaining KC-135s are now KC-135Rs. USAF release.

KC-135E retires

Sept 16/09: US Secretary of Defense Gates says that he is giving the new leaders he’d installed at the Air Force the final say in the $40 billion tanker deal. This is a reversal from the Round 1 arrangements after the GAO ruled that the USAF had not followed its own criteria, and the US Department of Defense took over direct management of the program. On the other hand, it does put the USAF on the firing line instead of the DoD, in order to absorb any initial hits in what’s sure to be an intense political fight.

Sept 15/09:Aviation Week reports that keeping the existing KC-135 fleet in the air will become increasingly expensive:

“…at AMC, planners are wrangling with how to keep the KC-135s flying until as late as 2043… outgoing AMC chief [Arthur] Lichte points out that maintenance crews sometimes work 7 hr. for every hour of KC-135 flight. “Every year we don’t get tankers, it is costing us $55 million right off the top,” Lichte says. “When you get out to about 2018 and 2020, what started out as about $2 billion a year to maintain the KC-135 fleet goes all the way up to $6 billion… we continue to do everything we can to make sure don’t have an Aloha Airlines where the skin peels back or a TWA 800 [type incident] where frayed wires cause an explosion in the fuel tank… In total, aging-related costs are expected to add at least $17.8 billion to the price of maintaining the KC-135 for 40 years.”

The increase in projected maintenance costs is attributable mostly to fuselage skin and wiring checks, and corrosion issues which are already a significant contributor (30%-50%, by some reports) to depot maintenance costs. Meanwhile, access to KC-10 replacement parts is a worry, and the KC-10 boom control unit is becoming unreliable and should be replaced.

“Boeing officials are determined to set “aggressive price targets” for selecting suppliers and even manufacturing locations… Boeing’s quest for cost-savings has also reopened the 777’s engine supplier to competition… all three certified engines – the GE90, Pratt & Whitney PW4000 and Rolls-Royce Trent 800 – will be considered if Boeing decides to offer the KC-777. However, engines that have not been certified on the 777, such as the GEnx family, have been ruled out. “We don’t think there’s enough time for a certification programme,” Lemaster says… If Boeing decides to propose the KC-767 in the next round, the structures and control systems will come from the same aircraft type, Lemaster says.”

Sept 14/09: US Ar Force Secretary Michael Donley says the WTO’s ruling will have no effect on the USAF’s process, as Airbus’ counterclaim is still pending, and so is the EU’s expected appeal.

Sept 14/09: In a briefing at the Air Force Association’s 2009 Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition, Boeing officially acknowledges that the Boeing 767 and 777 are both potential KC-X candidates. They also launch their own web site, UnitedStatesTanker.com, to promote their “KC-7A7” tanker bid. Boeing release | Boeing briefing [PDF]

Sept 8/09: EADS chief executive Louis Gallois tells the French newspaper La Tribune that: “Our objective is to be in the [KC-X] competition. We are totally determined to be in the running, unless it appears that the request for proposal is biased.” Source.

Sept 4/09: The World Trade Organization issues an interim ruling that the $4 billion in aid Airbus received from European governments to develop the A380 super-jumbo passenger jet constituted illegal subsidies.

Technically, the WTO ruling could empower the U.S. to levy tariffs either against Airbus or other European imports, equal to the amount of the improper subsidies. Legally, the EU is expected to appeal the ruling, Airbus has complaints of its own on tap, and any firm action remains years away. Business Week | bnet.

“BARKSDALE: The 777 as a tanker is just so much more capable than anything it’s got as a peer. And I know that sounds like a bit of bravado, but… I’ll give you a couple of examples. If you compare them, the 777 would provide – deliver – however you want to say it – 23% more fuel than the KC-30. It could carry 44% more payload – more cargo – in the back. And it also would carry about 42% more passengers in the back as well. So those are very generic, very general kinds of numbers… If the air force really wants to go in that direction, the Boeing company has spent a lot of time in the last year preparing for that, knowing that we have a real, true, large tanker that, like I said, is comparable in size to the KC-30. And, yet, you get so much more for your money.”

June 15/09:Bloomberg reports that Boeing is preparing to submit a KC-777 for KC-X v2.0, but a DoD Buzz story clarifies. It turns out that Boeing is preparing to offer a KC-777 option if the revised requirements put a premium on cargo capability or fuel offload amounts, but the firm hasn’t made a decision and won’t until the RFP comes out. The firm had considered a KC-777 before the initial KC-X RFP as well, but the RFP’s lack of extra points for exceeding USAF specifications led Boeing to go with its smaller, cheaper, and more fully developed KC-767 instead. DoD Buzz adds:

“Still, a Boeing 777 bid raises all sorts of questions. Given the problems Boeing has had reducing the vibrations afflicting its refueling pods on the 767, and the enormous technical and engineering challenges of refitting the 777, can the company get a plane in shape in time to fill the Air Force’s first tranche of 179 planes?… But it may be that Boeing is largely conceding the first tranche of planes to Northrop and aiming for the larger follow-on buy.”

The DoD Buzz report adds rumors that Northrop Grumman may walk if the revised RFP is seen as weighted in Boeing’s favor – again, a parallel with the firm’s rumblings before the initial KC-X RFP was issued:

“…there are rumors that Northrop is weighing its commitment to the tanker program, which has cost the company financially and politically. Two sources have told me that Ron Sugar, the company’s CEO, will walk away from the competition should the new RFP appear weighted too heavily in Boeing’s favor. This could, of course, be part of the company’s gaming efforts to ensure that the Air Force does include analysis such as best value as it makes its choice. Meyers made clear, as does his colleague Janis Pamiljans in the video below, that the Air Force must include “best value” as a key component of the service’s tanker analysis.”

June 9/09: The USAF’s role in KC-X v2.0 is still up for debate. Military.com’s DoD Buzz reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is still deciding whether the Air Force would lead the renewed competition, or whether it would remain with the Office of Secretary of Defense. Either way, however, Gates said that former Raytheon lobbyist and current Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn would take a “very close interest” in the program.

“…this isn’t only a debate over who will be ultimately responsible for the program, but that it will also determine how much this program will be impacted by the new Weapons Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. One of the major revisions to the Senate’s initial version of the bill in the Senate Armed Service committee’s mark-up was changing language that would require the newly established Director of Independent Cost Assessment to conduct independent cost assessments for all major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) to only those programs where the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT &L) is the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA)… But as a result of this change in mark up, if DoD chooses to give the Air Force management of the tanker program, there will be no mandatory role for the new Director of Independent Cost Assessment to provide oversight and implement policies and procedures to make sure that the cost estimation process is reliable and objective. One can’t help but wonder how much DoD had the tanker program in mind when requesting this change to the legislation.”

“Despite Obama Administration rhetoric about openness in federal contracting, the new and improved tanker selection process has all the transparency of the FBI’s witness protection program. The performance requirements for the future tankers were blessed by the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council with almost no input from industry, and now the acquisition strategy is being crafted in much the same way. If you were planning to spend $100 billion over the next 30 years on a new aircraft fleet, wouldn’t you want to check with the only two qualified suppliers to determine whether your terms and specifications were reasonable? We have been here before… Many of those problems could have been avoided if the industry teams had been kept informed on how the selection process was unfolding… The current buildup to a re-competition is being carried out with even greater secrecy.”

At this point, with Northrop Grumman and its suppliers believing that a huge contract was taken away from them, and Boeing treating the lobbying as a life-or-death issue, the impact may be tangential. The political reality is that lack of transparency can make the process worse, but even perfect transparency won’t remove the fundamental political bottleneck.

March 17/09: NGC endorses split-buy.A Northrop Grumman release offers figures from a KC-135 Economic Service Life Study, and claims that for each KC-45 that enters service, USAF operating costs would drop by $7 million per year, assuming replacement of 2 KC-135s with each A330 MRTT inducted. It adds:

“Congressmen John Murtha (D-PA) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) commented recently the only way to get badly needed tankers to our warfighters quickly is through a dual procurement acquisition process… According to Northrop Grumman analysis, a dual procurement scenario could replace the capability of the entire Air Force KC-135 fleet by the year 2022 – seven years sooner than best case single procurement strategy. Dual procurement eliminates the need to re-skin the KC-135 aircraft.

By procuring 24 aircraft per year from two contractors rather than 15 per year from a single source, as is the current Air Force budget plan, the service could save $7.2 billion in tanker Operating and Support (O&S) costs between 2012 and 2022 compared to the O&S costs associated with a single procurement strategy. Through dual procurement, the Air Force saves $10.2 billion in tanker O&S between 2012 and 2029, compared to the O&S costs associated with a single procurement strategy. [Our product is better, but]… if Congressmen Murtha and Abercrombie are correct the only way to get tankers to the warfighter quickly is through a dual procurement strategy, Northrop Grumman will support the effort.”

The crunch, of course, is that 9 more aircraft per year, at about $200 million each, adds $1.8 billion per year to actual spending. That’s another $19.8 billion from 2012-2022, or $30.6 billion from 2012-2029. The difference between those figures, and projected savings over the same time period, must come from somewhere. That means either expansion of the overall military budget, or dollars taken from other military programs. Both options are unlikely, and difficult.

March 13/09: An Inside the Air Force article entitled “Report: KC-135 Maintenance Could Reach $3 Billion Per Year by 2040” says that KC-135 maintenance costs will escalate by almost 50% over the next 30 years, and cost twice as much as new tankers. The KC-135 Economic Service Life Study claims that it will end up costing the Air Force more than FY2000$ 103 billion to operate and maintain the KC-135s between 2001-2040. Source.

March 11/09: Reports surface that the Obama administration will propose a 5-year delay to the USAF’s aerial tanker program, as US OMB recommendations leak to the general press. The Pentagon is not bound by those recommendations, and US Secretary of Defense Gates is quoted as saying that:

“In the days to come, any information you may receive about budget or program decisions will undoubtedly be wrong because I intend to wait until the end of our review process before making any decisions.”

March 11/09: Democratic Party congressmen John Murtha [D-PA] and Neil Abercrombie [D-HI] begin publicly proposing the split-buy idea that has been floated quietly in the background for several months now. Reuters | Reuters Update.

“From what little I have heard about the requirements, it seems pretty clear that the Air Force has compressed and simplified the requirements to avoid the likelihood of another award protest but has not changed its mind about what capabilities are needed… But Rep. Jack Murtha’s plan to split the buy – and avoid what would seem to be an otherwise unavoidable second protest – would seem to allow both companies some breathing room… the Air Force’s opposition may be at an end – at least for the initial purchase.”

Murtha [D-PA] has been at the center of ethical investigations over his career, but he remains a powerful member of the Democratic Party. He chairs the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee.

Feb 25/09: USAF Transportation Command leader Gen. Duncan McNabb testifies to a joint hearing of the House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Air and land forces subcommittees. He reiterates KC-X as the USAF’s top priority, and says that further delays in replacing the KC-135 fleet would add significant risk to the U.S. military’s ability to quickly move troops and firepower rapidly to the globe’s combat zones. Reuters, via Forbes.

Jan 29/09: The US government’s Office of Management and Budget submits a list of potential defense program cuts in its guidance to the US Defense Department. One of the suggestions is reportedly a 5-year delay of the KC-X program. The Pentagon is not bound by these suggestions, but the recommendations will become news in March 2009, igniting controversy and lobbying. Source.

FY 2008

“Two months from Election Day, politics seem to be everywhere we turn. However, one place we should not see politics is in our Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition process. The process to select the new Air Force tanker fleet has become so politicized that DoD allowed parochial and business interests to keep the Air Force’s top acquisition priority from the pilots who need it. The long fight over the tanker contract proves that the acquisition process is fundamentally and significantly flawed… Politics just cancelled a competitively awarded contract, solely because Boeing was not the winner. Defense acquisition policy has been stated: If it is not a Boeing plane, DoD is not going to buy it.”

“John Young, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in an interview at the Pentagon yesterday that under the tanker proposal from Northrop Grumman and its partner European Aeronautic Defence & Space, developing the first 68 aircraft would have cost $12.5 billion, compared with $15.4 billion under Boeing’s plan.”

Sept 10/08:The Pentagon announces that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has canceled the competition for the $35 billion Air Force tanker contract:

“It has now become clear that the solicitation and award process cannot be accomplished by January. Thus, I believe that rather than hand the next administration an incomplete and possibly contested process, we should cleanly defer this procurement to the next team… It is my judgment that in the time remaining to us, we cannot complete a competition that will be viewed as fair and competitive in this highly-charged environment… I believe the resulting cooling-off period will allow the next administration to view objectively the military requirements and craft a new acquisition strategy for the KC-X as it sees fit.”

Cancellation

Sept 3/08: Gen. Lichte of USAF Air Mobility Command says that he expects a protest after the final round 2 RFP is released. He hopes it doesn’t happen. But:

“I mean this is a lot of money, I understand the business nature of this. But I don’t understand how at some point you stop and say, this company wins, and this company loses, or this company is successful and this company is not. I don’t know how we get through something like that. With the poisonous nature of all the comments that are out there right now, I don’t know how we make peace with everybody to say, okay let’s go forward.”

He also said that he does not want a split buy…

“However, if you were to tell me that was the only way to get out of [the current situation] then I’d take it… We need a new tanker now. I don’t care which one it is. And we need to get on with this quickly.”

Aug 14/08: Jerry Cox is a former procurement policy counsel in the U.S. Senate, and now holds the title of managing director of The Forerunner Foundation. At, least according to the article byline in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer for “Tanker choice in mathematical terms“. The core claim of the article is as follows:

“The Air Force knows a tanker accomplishes nothing by flying from Point A to Point B, so what really matters is the ratio of delivery. How many gallons will the plane deliver for every gallon it burns? That’s a tougher problem, but it’s hardly trigonometry. Northrop showed the Air Force it can deliver almost two pounds for every pound it burns, while Boeing delivers only 1.6 pounds. That’s a 22 percent edge for Northrop, and the numbers hold up, regardless of the trip length.”

What the newspaper did not mention is that Cox also heads up a lobbying firm called Potomac Strategy Associates. DID spoke to Jerry Cox, however, and he told us that his PSA has not been employed by any firm in conjunction with the aerial tanker competition.

Aug 11/08:Aviation week reports that Boeing is strongly considering a refusal to bid as its response to the revised KC-X RFP.

That response would leave the field open to EADS/Northrop Grumman in a formal sense, but the political weight of that kind of protest move would force the Pentagon to think long and hard before signing a contract under those circumstances. Until Boeing makes a firm decision, of course, its bid team must continue working full speed ahead.

Aug 6/08: New draft RFP. The USAF has issued a new draft of its RFP, and appears to be adopting an approach of minimum required compliance. On the surface, there are 2 major changes. Fuel costs over a plane’s 40-year lifetime will be considered, and full credit will now be given for exceeding the stated requirements in key areas like cargo capacity, fuel offload, et. al. Neither was true under the old RFP. The catch is that different levels of importance are being assigned to various types of costs, with development and production cost estimates weighted more heavily than long-term projections for maintenance and fuel costs. The second major change around exceeding performance limits simply makes the USAF’s original evaluation approach the competition’s officially announced approach, instead of a violation of the competition’s terms.

Under those terms, Boeing is likely to lose again – which may trigger a follow-on protest upon the release of the revised RFP. The planned time line for moving forward is as follows:

Aug 6-13: DoD officials will take a week to discuss elements of the draft with Northrop-Grumman and Boeing. Expect a lot of back and forth over the terms of the RFP, including efforts by members of the (currently recessed) Congress.

Mid-August: DoD plans to issue the final RFP amendment, with just 45 days for renewed submissions. Note that this time frame would make an airframe switch very difficult, due to the hundreds of pages of documentation, cost information, and design work required.

Early October 2008: Renewed submissions due.

October to late November: Discussions with the companies about their proposals.

Early December: Final proposal revisions for “best, final” offer.

Early January 2009: Decision made and announced. If Boeing wins, the existing contract is canceled and a new one is signed. If Airbus/NGC win again, the current stop-work order is lifted.

It’s important to note that the US DoD’s desired schedule, and what politics, appeals, et. al. actually end up dictating, may end up being 2 different things. On a political level, however, introducing the revised RFP when Congress is in recess, and not issuing a decision until after the elections, will help to lower elected representatives’ political leverage. What it will not do is provide full insulation, since the decision is certain to be an important election issue in some states. The first days in a new Congress’ term also tend to provide some political insulation for issues of this type, since members are busy with other things. Nevertheless, it can also be a double-edged sword. Exceptions do occur if the issue in question is a big enough priority for enough elected representatives. In that case, the first days of a term can also be the stage for dramatic political actions whose fallout would be considered much more carefully later in their term.

July 9/08: Let Round 2 begin. American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announces that the KC-X competition will be re-opened, with at least one important difference: the Air Force won’t be running it. Meanwhile, Northrop-Grumman has been ordered to stop work on its contract.

Undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics John J. Young Jr. will be in charge of the acquisition, and will appoint an advisory committee to oversee the selection process. , and a modified request for proposal could be issued before the end of July 2008, with a decision expected by year’s end.

Boeing’s statement welcomes the news, and claims that life-cycle costs including fuel will now be considered in the competition:

“However, we remain concerned that a renewed Request for Proposals (RFP) may include changes that significantly alter the selection criteria as set forth in the original solicitation. As the Government Accountability Office reported in upholding our protest, we submitted the only proposal that fully met the mandatory criteria of the original RFP… we will also take time to understand the updated solicitation to determine the right path forward for the company. It’s encouraging that the Defense Department intends to take steps …that, among other things, fully accounts for life-cycle costs, such as fuel…”

In the aftermath of the START-II arms control treaty, some of the USA’s nuclear-powered Ohio Class SSBN nuclear missile submarines were converted to become long range conventional strike and special operations SSGN “Tactical Tridents.” Four ultra-stealthy Ohio-class SSBNs had their 24 Trident II D-5 nuclear ballistic missiles removed. They were replaced with up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, plus space in the sub for 66-102 special forces troops, special attachments for new Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) or older Seal Delivery Vehicle (SDV) “mini-subs,” and a mission control center. Unmanned Underwater Vehicles, and even UAVs for aerial operations, are expected to become equally important options over the SSGN fleet’s career.

…to these
(click to view full)

These modifications provide the USA with an impressive and impressively flexible set of conventional firepower, in a survivable and virtually undetectable platform, which can remain on station for very long periods of time. As surveillance-strike complexes make the near-shore more and more hazardous for conventional ships, and the potential dangers posed by small groups continue to rise, America’s converted SSGN submarines will become more and more valuable. This updated, free-to-view article covers their origins and timeline, the key technologies involved, contracts from the program’s inception to the present day, with all 4 submarines back in service.

The US Navy’s New SSGN Platform

The concept
(click to view full)

These SSBN to SSGN conversions were originally sparked by the 1992 START II Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which limited the number of strategic missile submarines to 14 as of the year 2002. Rather than decommissioning the USS Ohio [SSBN 726], USS Michigan [SSBN 727], USS Florida [SSBN 728] and USS Georgia [SSBN 729] Ohio Class submarines, why not change ther mission, and modify them to the “Tactical Trident” Configuration described above? Strong support for this idea was quickly forthcoming from Senators Dodd [D-CT], Inouye [D-HI], Lieberman [D-CT], and Pell [D-RI].

These submarines’ obvious usefulness in the Global War on Terror, and the program’s previous bipartisan popularity, were potent political assets. The US Senate mandated and funded conversion of all 4 Tactical Trident SSGNs in the FY 2002 defense appropriation bill, even though President Bush had requested only enough money to convert 2 subs.

ASDS Cutaway
(click to view full)

To create a Tactical Trident submarine, 2 of the Ohio Class SSBNs’ 24 large vertical missile launch tubes are converted to lockout chambers, enabling underwater exits from the hull without sinking the submarine. Dedicated accommodations and facilities exist for 66 Special Operations personnel, generally Navy SEALS – though some sources note an upper limit of 102 troops in emergencies.

It was hoped that Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) mini-subs could also be attached to the top of the SSGN, in order to deliver SEALs or MARSOC members inshore in a dry environment, reducing fatigue. Unfortunately, the ASDS program suffered from serious development problems, and was eventually canceled. ASDS-1 was used until it was destroyed in a shore fire. Unless an alternate system is developed and deployed, existing Seal Delivery Vehicles (SDVs) will remain the mainstay.

SDV in action
(click to view full)

Like the new Virginia Class submarines (SSN-744) whose estimated costs range from $1.7-$2.3 billion billion each, these 4 converted SSGNs will extend US special forces’ underwater insertion capability. The decommissioning of the 1960s-vintage Benjamin Franklin Class [SSBN 640] submarines USS James K. Polk [SSN/SSBN 645] in 1999, and USS Kamehameha [SSN/SSBN 642] in 2002, was offset by the subsequent modification of the SSN-688I improved Los Angeles Class subs Charlotte [SSN 766] and Greeneville [SSN 772], and by the capabilities of each Virginia Class submarine. Even so, the sheer number of SSGN troop berths and dedicated facilities will give the new Tactical Trident subs a level of SOF capability and flexibility that will set it apart. Given the new global environment, the lead role that has been assigned to SOCOM for prosecuting the Global War on Terror, and the USA’s increased emphasis on threats and warfare in shallow water and near-shore littoral zones, the SSGNs bring an extremely important capability to the table.

The havoc that 102 Navy SEALs and/or MARSOC Marines can create is not to be underestimated. Nevertheless, the converted subs’ most powerful strike capability still lies in their missiles. That’s where the submarine’s other 22 vertical launch tubes come in to play, thanks to rotary launchers that let each tube fire up to 7 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

BGM-109 Tomahawk

BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles have played major roles in U.S. military operations, from Desert Storm through current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Flying close to the ground at just under the speed of sound, they can deliver a 1,000 lb. conventional explosive warhead with pinpoint accuracy via GPS/INS and terrain matching navigation. A datalink even allows them to be reprogrammed among any of 15 pre-programmed alternate targets, while still in the air. In the first day of Operation Iraqi Freedom alone, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea launched 320 Tomahawks.

JINSA notes that the majority of Tomahawk cruise missiles are currently launched by Navy surface vessels, such as the Ticonderoga Class (CG-47) cruisers and Arleigh Burke Class (DDG-51) destroyers. The later series of Los Angeles Class (SSN-688I) and the newest Virginia Class (SSN-744) attack submarines are armed with 12 dedicated Tomahawk launch tubes each, while earlier Los Angeles boats and the newest Seawolf Class (SSN-21) have to sacrifice some of their stored torpedoes to carry and launch Tomahawks through their torpedo tubes.

SSGN Changes
(click to view larger)

Again, numbers matter. The ability to arrive unnoticed with up to 154 long-range land-attack missiles, launch Tomahawks, and then slip away silently beneath the waves, will make the new Tactical Trident SSGNs the US Navy’s premier future strike platform next to its carrier fleet. This Special Forces/Strike Mission flexibility, and the new SSGNs extreme underwater stealth, may even make them more important and useful in a number of future conflict scenarios. Indeed, if anti-shipping missile technologies and related systems continue to advance faster than defensive improvements, the SSGN fleet’s survivability may vault them into the #1 position as America’s primary strike platform, with special emphasis near a number of key global choke points like the Straits of Hormuz, Straits of Malacca, etc.

The last mission of the SSGN fleet will be one of innovation. An August 2003 Seapower article also suggested that these vessels will perform as seagoing test beds for the submarine fleet, trying out new technologies and testing new tactics for other classes of submarines. sub-launched UAVs, UUVs, and other new equipment are likely to see their first testing and live-use trials aboard these ships.

In the past, when trouble struck in a global hotspot, it has been said that one of the first questions an American President asks has been “Where are the carriers?” In future, that question may often change to “Where are the Tactical Tridents?”

Naval Technology reported that USS Ohio [SSGN 726] began conversion in November 2002, and would rejoin the fleet in November 2005. Conversion was declared complete on Jan 9/06, and the submarine spent 2006 and part of 2007 in testing and training. Ohio deployed to the Pacific on active operations in 2007, and Jan 11/08 saw the first active crew swap take place in Guam.

USS Florida [SSGN 727] began SSGN conversion in July 2003, and was expected to rejoin the fleet in April 2006. She left the shipyard at Norfolk in April 2007, and participated in at-sea testing before being sent on active missions. She was the 1st Ohio Class SSGN to fire cruise missiles in combat, during 2011 hostilities over Libya.

USS Michigan [SSGN 728] arrived for conversion in February 2004. The contract noted December 2006 as the expected end of construction and beginning of renewed sea trials; a Return to Service ceremony was hosted on June 12/07.

USS Georgia’s [SSBN 729] plan stipulated September 2007 as the expected end of construction and beginning of renewed sea trials, but a May 2007 NAVSEA release would say only “late 2007.” That date, too, appears to have slipped. In the end, the submarine was returned to service on March 28/08.

A passing operational evaluation (OPEVAL) grade appears to have been granted to the new class, leading to full certification for combat operations, and the beginning of a potent new weapon for American seapower.

With respect to key contractors:

General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp. was the shipbuilding contractor, and is the default contract recipient in the lists below unless otherwise specified.

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems modified the Trident nuclear missile fire control system to systems designed to control Tomahawk cruise missiles etc.

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems adapted the ballistic missile missile launch tubes, developing a Multiple All Up Round Canister (MAC) to store and launch of up to 7 TLAM C-E non-nuclear Tomahawk missiles from each of the submarine’s 22 remaining active missile tubes.

Raytheon builds the Composite Capsule Launching System that helps turn the submarines’ ballistic missile launching tubes into multiple-shot cruise missile launchers. They are also responsible for the submarines’ AN/BYG-1 combat system.

Northrop Grumman Oceanic and Naval Systems tried to build the attached ASDS “Advanced SEAL delivery System” mini-subs, the successors to the existing SDVs (SEAL Delivery Vehicle). The ASDS aimed to deliver up to 16 Navy SEALs or MARSOC members. Unfortunately the program was not successful.

July 2/19: Preservation and Repairs International Marine and Industrial Applicators LLC was tapped with $8.5 million for the accomplishment of preservation and non-SUBSAFE structural repairs and maintenance on USS Michigan or SSGN 727. The deal will provide preservation, structural repairs, anode removal and safety track repair requirements and include all necessary management, material support services, labor, supplies and equipment deemed necessary to perform this work. Non-SUBSAFE means the structural repairs and maintenance are not part of the Submarine Safety Program, a quality assurance program of the US Navy designed to maintain the safety of the submarine fleet. The USS Michigan is the second sub of the Ohio Class of ballistic missile submarines and guided missile submarines. The Michigan was launched on April 26, 1980. It was built to carry the Navy’s third generation submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), the Trident C-4. Work under the contract will take place in Bremerton, Washington and is scheduled to be complete by June next year.

February 28/19: CPGS Strategic Systems Programs contracted Lockheed Martin with a $846 million modification for large diameter rocket motors, associated missile body flight articles and related support equipment for the Navy Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike Weapon System flight test demonstrations. The modification includes design, development, construction and integration. The system allows the US to strike targets anywhere within an hour. The CPGS weapons are not substitutes for nuclear weapons, but supplement US conventional capabilities and serve as an effort at deterrence. The Navy conducted the first test of the system in 2017 on the Ohio-class submarines. They are nuclear-powered submarines and form the sole class of ballistic missile submarines currently in service with the US Navy. Four Ohio-class underwater crafts have been converted to guided-missile submarines to carry conventional weapons by modifying missile tubes. Work under the contract modification will take place in Littleton, Colorado and is expected to be finished on January 1, 2024.

Oct 18/11: Reports surface that the US Navy is investigating Virginia Class submarines as a potential successor to the SSGN fleet, which still has about 15 years of service left.

The Virginia Class Block III bow already uses 2 large “six-shooter” rotating tubes, for storing BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles and compatible payloads. Their system is derived from the Ohio SSGNs, but the tubes are a bit shallower and narrower, due to the SSN’s smaller size. The new Virginia design they’re investigating would add a 94-foot section behind the sail, hosting 4 full Trident size “7-shooter” tubes, and bringing the submarines up to 40 cruise missiles each. That’s much smaller than the SSGNs’ 154 launcher maximum, but a fleet of 10 or so boats could be in many more places than a fleet of 4. The Virginia Class can already launch special forces, and can be fitted with adapters to mount underwater special forces vehicles. AOL Defence | Aviation Week | StrategyPage.

March 19/11: Combat Debut. The USS Florida [SSGN 727] fires most of Operation Odyssey Dawn’s initial wave of Tomahawk missiles, as combat over Libya begins. It represents the 1st combat firing of tomahawks by an Ohio Class SSGN – though it may or may not have been the first time an SSGN was used in a combat operation. King’s Bay Periscope.

July 8/10: The US Navy almost never publicizes the activities or locations of its SSBN nuclear missile submarines, beyond the occasional at-sea or home port photo. Now that the converted SSGNs aren’t carrying enough nuclear warheads to end a civilization, however, American naval diplomacy has some additional options in this area. South Korea’s Chosun Ilbo takes notice of publicly-released US Navy pictures of the USS Michigan, docked at South Korea’s Busan naval base over the last week following joint exercises with the ROK Navy. The move comes after China’s proxy North Korea sank the South Korean corvette Cheonan with a submarine-fired torpedo. The paper adds:

“Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post on Sunday said the nuclear-powered [SSGN] submarines Michigan, Ohio and Florida surfaced in Busan, Subic Bay in the Philippines and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean around the same time… The sub can also carry South Korean special forces troops for infiltration operations into North Korea in the event that a regime collapse in the North heightens the chances of nuclear weapons and missile theft or a full-blown war. The submarine apparently took part in joint military exercises with South Korea in the past carrying the South’s special forces units.”

June 9 – June 28/10: USS Florida [SSGN 728] makes a scheduled port visit to Diego Garcia in the central Indian Ocean, to undergo routine maintenance and make a scheduled crew swap. The submarine conducted a fast checkout cruise in Diego Garcia after the crew exchange, then left following the 1st voyage repair period of her 2nd deployment. US Navy arrival | departure.

Subic Bay was once an American naval station, but is now simply a foreign port. Even so, it’s more than just a waypoint. The Philippines have a long-running Islamist insurgency in their southern islands, which has been a focus for a lot of work by American special forces in recent years.

March 9/10: USS Florida [SSGN 728] arrives for a routine port visit to the island of Crete, in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. US Navy.

USS Georgia off Italy
(click to view full)

Aug 29/09: USS Ohio [SSGN 726] arrives at Fleet Activities Yokosuka in Japan for a routine port visit. The visit to Yokosuka marks the beginning of a one-year deployment to U.S. 7th Fleet for Ohio. US Navy.

“The guided-missile submarine USS Georgia (SSGN 729) transits the St. Marys River on her first operational deployment as a converted Guided-missile submarine. Georgia will deploy for approximately one year to the 5th and 6th Fleet areas of responsibility before returning to homeport at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Ga.”

“The first two deployments, the Ohio and Florida, were groundbreaking deployments… The ships work as advertised, brought home the bacon. And I wish I could give you the briefs in detail, because they are eye-watering… These ships are the Navy’s premiere counter-terrorism tool, no doubt about it.”

Feb 22/08:StrategyPage reports that “The U.S. Navy has completed the conversion of the last of four Ohio class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), to cruise missile submarines (SSGN).”

Jan 10/08: The US military no longer sails its ships home every time it needs to swap crews – instead, it brings new crews to the ships. USS Ohio [SSGN 726] is completing the first underway period of a 1 year deployment to 7th Fleet, and is spending its time in the Western Pacific. On this day, the submarine arrived in Guam. Its original “Blue Crew” was relieved on Jan 11/08 by the follow-on “Gold Crew,” but will remain for about 3 weeks to put the sub in tip-top shape before they fully turn it over and fly home.

Ohio will treat Guam as its home base until have 3 crew swaps have passed; then it will return to its official home port in Bangor, WA. US Navy release.

USS Ohio into Pearl
(click to view full)

Oct 22/07: USS Ohio [SSGN 726] arrives at Naval Station Pearl Harbor to take on supplies before continuing on their maiden deployment to the Western Pacific. US Navy Photo & caption.

May 17/07: FY 2007 strike trials underway. NAVAIR announces that 4 US Navy Tomahawk Cruise Missiles (2 Block III, 2 Block IV) were launched from the USS Florida [SSGN-728] while underway in the Gulf of Mexico recently. The tests were the first Tomahawk launches from the new SSGN Class submarine as part of the SSGN’s strike operational evaluation (OPEVAL). All tests were successful. NAVAIR release | NAVSEA release.

Jan 11/07: Oceaneering International Incorporated’s Marine Services Division (OII-MSD), Chesapeake, VA received a $10.9 million firm-fixed-price contract to furnish materials, tools, equipment and required support to perform manufacture and installation of Special Operation Forces walking flats and canisters on SSGN Class hulls. OII-MSD shall provide the necessary personnel and equipment to support multiple simultaneous manufacture and installation of units.

Work will be performed in Chesapeake, VA and is expected to be complete by February 2009. The contract was competitively procured and advertised via the Internet, with 2 proposals received by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division in Philadelphia, PA (N65540-07-C-0005).

Nov 20/06: USS Ohio [SSGN 726] moors at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, marking the first SSGN visit to the port. The boat is conducting training exercises and work-ups in the Hawaiian islands in preparation for its maiden deployment as an SSGN in 2007. US Navy Newsstand release.

Oct 6/06: USS Ohio [SSGN 726] returns to her homeport in the Hood Canal portion of Puget Sound, WA after becoming the first Ohio-class submarine to complete sea and hydrodynamic trials with recently installed dual drydeck shelters (DDS) for Special Operations Forces. US Navy Hi-Res photo.

April 8/06: The USS Florida departs Norfolk Naval Shipyard, VA, where her conversion to an SSGN was performed, en-route her new homeport of Naval Submarine Base King’s Bay, GA. US Navy Newsstand hi-res photos.

Feb 7/06:USS Ohio (now SSGN 726), the first of four SSGNs, rejoins the fleet in a return to service ceremony at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, WA. See US Navy release.

Jan 9/06: General Dynamics Electric Boat completes its conversion of USS Ohio [SSBN 726], the first of four Ohio-class submarines to be reconfigured. EB President John Casey noted that the conversion – comprising design, manufacturing, installation and at-sea testing – was completed only three years after the Navy decided to move forward with the program (DID: 3 years for the sub from Dec. 18/03, but it’s 4 for the program). “That’s a remarkable achievement,” he said.

He also said that USS Florida is on track to follow the lead-ship sea trial by only 3 months, which would result in delivery of the 2nd SSGN over a shorter-than-normal timeframe, and at a conversion cost lower than the lead ship’s. Read the GDEB corporate release.

Dec 19/05: The USS Ohio takes a significant step towards rejoining the fleet when it arrived at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Bremerton, WA with a broom atop its sail – signifying a clean sweep of its initial sea trials. US Navy photo.

Ohio, back to Puget
(click to view full)

Oct 14/05: A $162.4 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-02-C-2901) for conversion of the USS Georgia from Ohio Class ballistic missile submarine SSBN 729 to Ohio Class guided missile submarine SSGN 729. The conversion will be conducted concurrently with the ship’s engineered refueling overhaul being performed at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and work is expected to complete by September 2007.

May 19/05: A $14.7 million Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract modification to previously awarded contract for the Procurement of Long Lead Time Material for the Conversion of Ohio Class SSBN Submarines to Ohio Class SSGN Submarines (N00024-02-C-2901). DID covers it.

January 28/05: A $150 million cost-reimbursement modification under contract N00024-02-C-2901 for the conversion of USS Michigan [SSBN 727] to SSGN 727. The USS Michigan’s conversion will be conducted concurrently with the ship’s engineered refueling overhaul being performed at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Work is expected to be complete by December 2006.

January 10/05: An $8.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee material order under a previously awarded contract (N00024-04-C-2100) for procurement of SSGN 727 and SSGN 728 long lead time material (LLTM, in this case ships’ service turbine generator sets). Work will take place in Groton, CT and is expected to be complete by May 2007.

SSBN-727 arrives
(click to view full)

May 5/04: A $5.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee material order under a previously awarded contract (N00024-04-C-2100) for procurement of SSGN 727 and SSGN 728 long lead time material (LLTM, in this case ships’ service turbine generator sets). The Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN in Groton, CT issued the contract modification.

March 3/04: A $149.4 million cost-reimbursement modification under contract N00024-02-C-2901 for the conversion of USS Florida [SSBN 728] to SSGN 728; and conversion installation planning for the conversion of USS Georgia [SSBN 729] to SSGN 729. Both conversions will be conducted concurrently with the ships’ engineered refueling overhaul being done at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and work is expected to be complete by September 2007.

Feb 6/04: A $15.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-02-C-2901) for procurement of long lead-time material for the conversion of Ohio Class SSBN submarines to SSGN submarines.

Dec 18/03: A $221.8 million cost-reimbursement modification under contract N00024-02-C-2901 for FY 04 conversion of SSBN 726 (USS Ohio) to SSGN 726, and long lead time material and conversion installation planning for conversion of USS Michigan [SSBN 727] and USS Georgia [SSBN 729] to SSGN 727 and SSGN 729.

Dec 11/03: A $30.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to exercise an option under previously awarded contract N00024-02-C-2901 for installation planning and manufacturing of long lead time material for conversion of Ohio Class SSBN submarines to SSGN submarines.

May 23/03: A $24.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification under contract N00024-02-C-2901 for the procurement and manufacturing of long lead-time material for conversion of Ohio Class SSBN submarines to SSGN submarines.

Dec 20/02: A $54.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification under contract N00024-02-C-2901 for the procurement of long lead time material (LLTM) for the conversion of Ohio Class SSBN submarines to Ohio Class SSGN submarines. LLTM includes material acquisition, vendor oversight, manufacturing, inspections, test, storage, preservation and vendor assistance in troubleshooting and resolving operational problems. Work will be performed in Groton, CT and is to be complete by September 2007.

Dec 13/02: A $38.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification under contract N00024-02-C-2901 to exercise an option for the procurement and manufacturing of long lead time material for conversion of Ohio Class SSBN submarines to SSGN submarines.

Sept 26/02: US Naval Sea Systems Command awards a $442.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00024-02-C-2901) to General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp. to provide a complete, accurate, and producible ship detail design for the conversion of up to 4 Ohio-class SSBN submarines to Ohio-class SSGN submarines.

Work will cover detail design, procurement and manufacturing of Long Lead Time Material (LLTM), and associated LLTM tasks including material acquisition, vendor oversight, manufacturing, inspections, test, storage, preservation, and vendor assistance in troubleshooting and resolving operational problems. Work will be performed in Groton, CT; and in Quonset and Newport, RI; with completion expected by September 2007. See also NAVSEA release.

SSGN Tactical Trident: Ancillary Program Contracts and Timelines

Pointer UAV, SSGN Ohio
(click to view full)

There’s a lot that goes into a program like this, including ancillary contracts that aren’t directly part of the program, but which are required for effective operation. Finding and keeping track of these contracts is difficult, but DID will present and add as many as we can find. Tips from readers are always appreciated (tips@ourdomain…).

Dec 9/11: BAE Systems in Rockville, MD receives a $58.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to provide Systems Engineering Integration support for the TRIDENT II D5 Strategic Weapon System (SWS) Program, the SSGN Attack Weapon System (AWS) Program, and the Common Missile Compartment (CMC) Program. Options could bring the contract’s total value to $123.3 million.

Work will be performed in Rockville, MD (70%); Washington, DC (20%); St. Mary’s, GA (5%); Bangor, WA (4%); and Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, United Kingdom (1%), and is expected to be completed Sept 30/12, or Sept 30/13 if the options are exercised. $38.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. This contract was not competitively procured (N00012-C-0009).

Dec 2/11: Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems – Marine Systems in Sunnyvale, CA, received an $83.2 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide FY 2012 support for the TRIDENT II D-5 launchers, submarines, and next-generation development efforts. This contract contains options, which could bring its total value to $123.1 million.

Technical engineering services and container production restart efforts for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty will also be included, as will technical engineering services to support the Advanced Launcher Development Program and Common Missile Compartment concept development and prototyping efforts for the U.S. and U.K.

Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA (80%); Bangor, WA (10%); and Kings Bay, GA (10%); and will end with the fiscal year on Sept 30/12, whereupon $45.3 million of these funds will expire; or it will end on Sept 30/14 if all options are exercised. The contract was not competitively procured (N00030-12-C-0015).

Nov 25/11: General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Inc. in Pittsfield, MA receives a $96 million cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee, fixed-price incentive contract to provide FY 2012 and FY 2013 engineering support to United States and United Kingdom Trident II SSBN Fire Control Subsystems, Ohio Class SSGN Attack Weapons Control Subsystem, and the Common Missile Compartment for the USA and UK’s next-generation nuclear missile submarines. This contract contains options which could bring its total value to $225 million over almost 4.5 years.

Work will be performed in Pittsfield, MA, and could run to April 14/16 with all options exercised. $35.1 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. This contract was not competitively procured by the US Strategic Systems Programs in Washington, DC (N00030-12-C-0006).

Jan 28/11: Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors in Manassas, VA receives an $11.3 million option to manufacture Acoustic Rapid Commercial-Off-The-Shelf Insertion (ARCI) hardware, supplying a System Improvement and Integration Program for the USS Ohio and USS Georgia SSGNs; and for the Virginia Class SSN 781 fast attack boat, which will become the USS California around 2013. Work will be performed in Manassas, VA (70%) and Clearwater, FL (30%), and is expected to be complete by April 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

The A-RCI program improves existing sonar systems by upgrading processors and back-end electronics, allowing significant improvements without having to replace the expensive sonar arrays.

Dec 1/09: Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA receives a $720.1 million modification to a cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide TRIDENT II (D5) and TRIDENT I (C4) missile subsystems. In addition to a long list of TRIDENT II (D5), and TRIDENT I (C4) missile subsystem requirements, they will also perform some SSGN-related efforts, including:

Provide storage and maintenance for the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, Nuclear (TLAM-N) at the Strategic Weapons Facilities;

Perform processing and provide technical services in support of the SSGN Attack Weapon System (AWS) at SWFLANT.

Work will be performed in California (42%); Georgia (11%); Utah (16%); Florida (9%); Washington (8%); Virginia (3%); Tennessee (2%); New Jersey (1%); Massachusetts (1%); Illinois (1%); Maryland (1%); other (5%), and is expected to be complete in September 2012. $285.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/09 (N00030-08-C-0100, PZ0001). See also March 26/08 entry.

Nov 19/08: General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Pittsfield, MA received a $52.3 million contract modification for FY09-FY11 U.S. and U.K. TRIDENT II (D5) fire control system (FCS) work, and to a much lesser extent, U.S. SSGN attack weapon control system (AWCS) support.

Work will be performed in Pittsfield, MA, and is expected to be complete on April 1/11. $25.8 million will expire at the end of current fiscal year, on Sept 30/09 (N00030-08-C-0041, P00013).

Sept 28/09: General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Pittsfield, MA receives a $152.8 million cost-plus-incentive fee contract, with 2 parts to it. General Dynamics will perform the work in Pittsfield, MA, and expects to complete it by December 2012. The US Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs in Arlington, VA manages the contract (N00030-10-C-0005).

One part provides for FY 2010 and FY 2011 production and deployed systems support for the US and UK SSBN fire control system (FCS) and the SSGN Attack Weapon Control System (AWCS). GD AIS will provide annual and other periodic procurements of support equipment and SSP alterations (SPALTs) necessary to sustain the SSBN FCS and the SSGN AWCS, including engineering support, performance evaluation, logistics, fleet documentation, reliability maintenance, engineering services, and training.

In addition, this contract includes the FY 2010 and FY 2011 US and UK Sea Based Strategic Deterrent (SBSD) Strategic Weapons System (SWS) fire control subsystem efforts necessary for the concept development, prototyping, and initial design efforts for a common missile compartment (CMC), prior to and following, the initiation of a ACAT 1D class program to replace the SSBN Ohio class.

Jan 11/08: A ribbon-cutting ceremony marks the completion of upgrades to Bravo Wharf at Naval Base Guam, providing the capability to host the Navy’s new SSGN submarines. The $50.7 million military construction (MILCON) project was awarded to Black Construction Corp. in 2006, and entailed dredging of the channel and turn basin at inner Apra Harbor, strengthening of existing wharf foundations, extending the wharf to accommodate SSGNs, as well as upgrading the fire protection, lighting, anchoring and water distribution systems. The newly improved wharf can also accommodate ships as large as a CG-47 Ticonderoga class cruisers.

The capability to host and provide a complete range of shore services to the SSGN on Guam allows for longer-term submarine presence, as well as a more robust range of sub-surface mission packages available in the Pacific theater of operations. The project was executed and managed in Guam by NAVFAC Marianas, under former submarine officer Cmdr. Matt Suess.

A complimentary Alpha Wharf improvement adjacent to Bravo Wharf is scheduled to be completed in summer 2008. US Navy release.

The period of performance is Oct 1/07 – April 2/11, and the place of performance (100%) is General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Pittsfield, MA. The funding profile is as follows: $3 million FY2007 UK (3.3%), $35.6 million FY2007 OPN (39.0%), $2.3 million FY2008 SCN (2.5%), $27.9 million FY2008 O&M,N (30.5%), $10 million FY2008 UK (10.9%), $9 million FY2008 OPN (10.0%), $3.5 million FY2008 WPN (3.8%). The award contains $27.9 million of FY2008 O&M,N funding which would expire at the end of the current fiscal year (FY2008). Strategic Systems Programs in Arlington, VA is isued the contract.

“The U.S. Navy has recommended Raytheon Company’s (NYSE: RTN) advanced submarine combat control system, AN/BYG-1, for fleet introduction on the SSGN Ohio Class and SSN-21 Seawolf Class attack submarines after favorable tests and evaluations. The recent Follow-on Operational Test & Evaluation reports highlighted several performance enhancements and confirmed the operational effectiveness and suitability of the AN/BYG-1[V]6 and [V]7 for the SSN-21 and SSGN platforms.

AN/BYG-1 exploits the power of sonar, electronic support measures, radar, navigation, periscopes, communication, command and weapons to provide a fully integrated submarine combat system. The system was designed using commercial off the shelf (COTS) equipment and open standards that provide interoperability, portability, scalability and supplier independence for all hardware and software components. The AN/BYG-1 system allows for rapid COTS insertion to accommodate and integrate additional functionality, sensors and/or weapons.”

March 30/07: DGM21 LLC in Montrose, CO received a $31.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for the FY 2007 consolidated construction projects for U.S. Naval Support Facility, Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territories. This is a design-build project is for wharf improvements and Shore Support Facilities related to the new SSGN submarines, with performance and prescriptive requirements provided by the Government. See DID coverage, with map.

Work will be performed in Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territories, and is expected to be complete April 2009. This contract was competitively procured with 17 solicitation packages distributed and 1 proposal received by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Construction Contracts Branch (N62742-07-C-1313).

Dec 5/06: BAE Systems Applied Technologies Inc. in Rockville, MD received a $71.8 million cost-plus-incentive-fee/ cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide systems integration support for TRIDENT II (D5) Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) Program and the SSGN Attack Weapon System Program. This contract contains options, which if exercised, would bring the total contract value to $77.9 million.

Work will be performed in Rockville, MD (89%); Kings Bay, GA (7%); Mechanicsburg, PA (3%); and Bangor, WA (1%), and is expected to be complete September 2009 (September 2010 with options). Contract funds in the amount of $55.9 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was awarded based on a sole source acquisition by the Strategic Systems Programs in Arlington, VA (N00030-07-C-0009).

June 12/06: Kollmorgen Corp. Electro-Optical Division in Northampton, MA received a $17.2 million fixed-price incentive and firm-fixed price modification under previously awarded contract N00024-05-C-6241, exercisinge an option for production of 7 integrated submarine imaging systems (ISIS), including associated on-board repair parts and installation-checkout spares for the SSN 688 class submarine; and 1 ISIS SSGN class production system, including associated on-board repair parts and installation and check-out spares. Work will be performed in Northampton, MA (70%); Waterford CT (15%); Manassas, VA (12%); and Brattaboro, VT (3%), and is expected to be complete by December 2008. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract.

Dec 22/05: Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ received an $8.8 million ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-04-C-0569) for the manufacture of 135 B Kits and assembly of the SSGN modification kit for the Composite Capsule Launching System (CCLS) capsule. The CCLS is for the Tomahawk cruise missiles specifically, and is compatible with the SSGN submarine Multiple AUR Canister (MAC) noted in the January 29, 2002 contract. The B Kits provide the components that complete the umbilical cable and aft end for the CCLS. Work will be performed in Joplin, MO (33.3%); Huntsville, AL (33%); Tucson, AZ (23.3%); and Camden, AR (10%), and is expected to be complete in July 2007. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract.

Dec 19/05: International Marine and Industrial Applicators, LLC in Irvington, AL won a $42 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for the painting and preservation of the USA’s Ohio Class SSBN nuclear missile subs and SSGN special ops & strike submarines. DID’s “Painting Ohio” has the remaining details.

Feb 21/05: Systems Planning and Analysis (SPA) Inc. in Alexandria, VA receives a $7.15 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide systems engineering and program support for Nuclear Weapons Security (NWS) Program and SSBN Superstructure Modification. SPA will examine alternative approaches for SSBN security to the baseline SSBN superstructure modification program and will work to insure total system integration of all elements on SSBN and SSGN related programs required to perform technical, operational, and programmatic tradeoffs. Work will be performed in Alexandria, VA, and is expected to be complete in November 2005. This contract was not competitively procured by the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs in Washington, DC (N00030-05-C-0015).

Dec 16/02: General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Pittsfield, MA receives a $90 million cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the FY03 Fire Control Omnibus Contract, which includes FBM Fire Control Production, Operational Support, Field Engineering Services, Repair and Return effort, and Development and SSGN Attack Weapons Control System (AWCS) design and production (N00030-03-C-0008)

Feb 21/02: General Dynamics Defense Systems in Pittsfield, MA receives a $5.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide for the fiscal year 2002 Nuclear Powered Cruise Missile Submarine (SSGN) Attack Weapons Control System (AWCS). The effort includes management and engineering services to develop the preliminary proof of concept system design for AWCS, proof of concept system architecture design review and development of preliminary planning for fleet documentation. Work will be performed in Pittsfield, MA, and is expected to be complete by December 2002. This contract was not competitively procured (N00030-02-C-0017). It is followed by other contracts which include this component as part of their total.

Jan 29/02: Northrop Grumman Marine Systems in Sunnyvale, CA receives $16.6 million to exercise an option contained in previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00030-01-C-0071) to provide for Ship, Submersible Guided Missile Nuclear (SSGN) Multiple-All-Up-Round Canister (MAC) Subsystem demonstration and validation (DEMVAL). The MAC allows 7 Tomahawk cruise missiles to be carried in and launched from each Trident misile tube. This contract represents a win for NGMS against a competitor, after 2 initial contracts were awarded in May 2001. Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA, and is expected to be complete by July 2003.

Oct 26/01: BAE Systems Applied Technologies Inc. in Rockville, MD received $58 million cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-plus-award-fee contract to provide fiscal year 2002 fleet ballistic missile (FBM) system integration and logistics support for the U.S. and United Kingdom Trident Programs. While not part of the SSGN program per se, the effort also includes Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM) and SSGN systems integration, and advanced systems studies, as part of its scope (N00030-02-C-0019). This is followed by other contracts which include this component as part of their total.

Unconventional Enemies?

Business 2.0 – The Technology Secrets of Cocaine, Inc. US Navy SEALs aren’t the only ones using mini-subs these days. The cocaine barons rely on surface ships instead of converted SSBNs to transport them, and use less sophisticated vessels; nevertheless, it’s an interesting indicator of the current global trend toward dangerous non-state actors with state-level resources. Note that US and British special forces have been used in the past to target the cocaine cartels’ operations.

StrategyPage (Jan 6/10) – Everyone With Sneaky Needs Does It. “In the last four years, U.S., and other navy and coast guard ships off the coast between Mexico and Colombia, have detected over 150 of these subs. Between 2000 and 2007, only 23 of these boats were spotted. But last year, over 70 were detected or captured… Many of the captures are the result of intelligence information at the source, not air and naval patrols… It’s estimated that about 75 of these subs are being built in northwest Colombia each year, and sent on one way trips north. Each of these boats carries a four man crew and about seven tons of cocaine (worth nearly $200 million on the street).”

The Economist (May 1/08) – Waving, not drowning. Documents the growth of mini-submersibles in maritime smuggling.

WIRED Danger Room (Nov 12/07) – Colombia’s Cocaine Subs. They’re built by FARC, and they’re becoming increasingly sophisticated. LA Times: “Over the last two years, Colombian authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy have seized 13 submarine-like vessels outfitted for drug running.”

LPD-17 San Antonio class amphibious assault support vessels are just entering service with the US Navy, and 11 ships of this class are eventually slated to replace up to 41 previous ships. Much like their smaller predecessors, their mission is to embark, transport, land, and support elements of a US Marine Corps Landing Force. The difference is found in these ships’ size, their cost, and the capabilities and technologies used to perform those missions. Among other additions, this new ship is designed to operate the Marines’ new MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, alongside the standard well decks for hovercraft and amphibious armored personnel carriers.

While its design incorporates notable advances, the number of serious issues encountered in this ship class have been much higher than usual, and more extensive. The New Orleans shipyard to which most of this contract was assigned appears to be part of the problem. Initial ships have been criticized, often, for sub-standard workmanship, and it took 2 1/2 years after the initial ship of class was delivered before any of them could be sent on an operational cruise. Whereupon the USS San Antonio promptly found itself laid up Bahrain, due to oil leaks. It hasn’t been the only ship of its class hurt by serious mechanical issues. Meanwhile, costs are almost twice the originally promised amounts, reaching over $1.6 billion per ship – 2 to 3 times as much as many foreign LPDs like the Rotterdam Class, and more than 10 times as much as Singapore’s 6,600 ton Endurance Class LPD. This article covers the LPD-17 San Antonio Class program, including its technologies, its problems, and ongoing contracts and events.

LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Capabilities and Features

Roles and Innovations

LPD-17 Class & ATF
(click to view full)

The LPD-17 Class featured both an innovative development process, and 21st century features that optimize them for a number of roles. These range from an assault ship that carries and sustains Marine Expeditionary Units, to use as a US Navy command node, the ability to play the lead roles in disaster relief operations, etc.

The ships will operate as part of larger Amphibious Task Forces (ATFs) in conjunction with a full set of airpower, additional assault ships, and air and sub-surface defense vessels. They can also be parceled out as the keystones of smaller three-ship Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs)/ Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs). At minimum, they can operate independently in low-threat scenarios during “split-ARG” operations, helping the group cover multiple areas of responsibility and respond to more than one contingency simultaneously.

A total of 11 ships of this class are slated to assume the functional duties of up to 41 previous ships, including the USA’s older LSD-36 USS Anchorage class dock landing ships (all decommissioned as of 2004, LSD-36 and LSD-38 transferred to Taiwan) and its LPD-4 USS Austin Class ships (12 built and serving, LPD 14 Trenton now India’s INS Jalashva). The San Antonio class ships may also replace 2 classes of ships currently mothballed and held in reserve status under the Amphibious Lift Enhancement Program (ALEP): the LST-1179 Newport class tank landing ships, and LKA-113 Charleston class amphibious cargo ships.

MV-22 Osprey

The San Antonio Class will also serve in a number of roles beyond combat.

While LPD-17 vessels will have their own helicopter contingent for patrols and transport operations, their large deck also makes them useful inshore “lilly pads” that can quickly refuel and turn around rotary aircraft from elsewhere in order to keep them on station longer. The ships are also designed to function as casualty receiving and treatment vessels, with 24 beds and two operating rooms. With communications capabilities that surpass most US and foreign vessels,

San Antonio Class vessels are potential command ships for US and joint task forces, and should make excellent UAV hosts and/or controllers.

Their 72,000 gallon per day reverse-osmosis water production certainly improves onboard creature comforts. It also allows the ship to operate in a critical lifesaving role in the wake of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the 2005 Asian tsunami, when fresh water is often the most urgent and difficult requirement.

Yet the ships’ combat role remains top-of-mind, and reminders of their purpose are deeply embedded in the names – and in some cases, the very fabric – of these ships. The USS New York [LPD 21] incorporated bow steel cast from salvaged remains of the World Trade Center. Later vessels in its class include USS Arlington [LPD 24], named after the section of the Pentagon that was also hit by an airliner on September 11. USS Somerset [LPD 25] is named in memory of United Flight 93, whose passengers’ heroic struggles with al-Qaeda hijackers crashed the plane in a Somerset County, PA field instead of the intended targets of the Capitol building or White House.

Basic Specifications

Specs

More Fun Facts

The US Navy has taken a tip from the cruise ship industry, and relied on heavy automation to bring down crew size. That frees up more space for troops, but these systems’ performance and resilience have become an issue.

The ship auxiliary systems are all electric, including electric heating and water heaters, 7 big York air-conditioning units (which will be appreciated by many troops), and a 72,000 gallon per day reverse osmosis water-generating plant.

A new high-power “low-drag” propeller hub design provides improved propeller efficiency, and helps them power the ship to speeds above 20 knots.

Within the ship, passageways are 25-30% wider than previous LPDs so combat-loaded Marines can move in full gear inside the skin of the ship just as if they were topside.

Those L-shaped berthing spaces have an extra 1-2 feet of headroom, enough for sailors and Marines to sit up in their racks. Personal storage space in all the berthing areas has gone up by 40%, compared to past LPDs.

The ships are also designed from the outset to accommodate the modern reality of mixed-gender sailors and Marines.

Food service has been modeled for maximum efficiency on both ends via simulation and task/traffic flow analysis that aim to keep both chow line waits and food production humming along.

San Antonio Class ships also feature amenities such as a ship services mall to ease long deployments, a fitness center, and learning resource center/electronic classroom enabled by the ship’s improved bandwidth and computing capabilities.

Self-Defense & Survivability: Options & Issues

AN/SPS-48E on LPD 17

In order to survive both their missions and the need for upgrades during their long service lives, LPD-17 ships have incorporated significant advances in ship self-defense, survivability, and C4I systems. The question is whether they will be enough, given the ships’ size and cost.

Step 1 involves making detection and lock-on harder. The San Antonio Class was intended to have a significantly reduced radar cross section signature (1/100th of the LSD-41 Class). Indeed, the San Antonio Class works to minimize its signature across a number of spectra. It optimizes radar cross-section by streamlining topside layout, and incorporating reduced radar signature technologies and design. Relevant design features include a boat valley instead of a boat deck, removable coverings over the rescue boat and fueling at sea stations, and accommodation ladders that fold into the ship’s hull. Meanwhile, the advanced composite-enclosed mast/sensors, which cover the ship’s SPS-48E and SPQ-9B radars and its communications antennas, give the ship its distinctive profile. In the end LPD-17 designs do have a smaller signature than the ship classes that preceded them, but a July 2007 article in the San Antonio Express-News points out that the ship’s radar signature won’t be reduced as much as planned, compromising its survivability in near-shore regions.

A minor consolation of the class’ stealth design is that there are fewer edges and seams to collect rust, and corrosion-resistant paint and composite building materials were expected to reduce future maintenance and painting costs. Unfortunately, serious construction flaws in several ships of class are quickly piling up maintenance costs in other, unexpected areas.

RIM-116 RAM Launch

Step 2 is active defense. The class will use Raytheon’s SSDS combat system, which will control and partially automate a set of air, surface, and navigation radars, as well as electronic countermeasures systems, towed torpedo decoys, missile decoy systems, and air defense that will include the short-range RAM missile system. That single layer of active protection has been highlighted as a weakness in Pentagon reports, which state that the ship’s radar and defensive systems can’t defend the ship reliably against the most advanced anti-ship missile threats. That may prompt the Navy to add bolt-on launchers for the medium-range RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles that equip many advanced NATO warships. For close-in defense, the LPD-17 class will use the MK46 stabilized 30mm autocannon with advanced sensors, as well as traditional .50 caliber machine guns mounted about the ship.

Step 3 involves the ability take a punch and keep fighting. The ship’s design worked to optimize the separation of redundant vital systems, and possesses a diverse suite of fire-fighting options. Fiber-optic wiring throughout the ship is designed for high-bandwidth SWAN (Shipboard Wide Area Network) applications, and features long-term upgradeability, redundancy, and durability. It will also help the automated ship control systems manage ship systems, and quickly make changes in the event of damage. It is also used as part of an advanced lighting system that improves visual stealth, lowers power requirements, and makes it easy to switch the entire ship to specified lighting modes.

Unfortunately, these features have not lived up to their promise. Pentagon reports cite reliability and effectiveness issues with the Engineering Control System (ECS), the electrical distribution system, and the SWAN, saying that they may magnify the effects of a crisis, instead of helping the crew save the ship.

Other shipboard vulnerability upgrades include improved fragmentation and nuclear blast protection, and a shock-hardened structure with upgraded whipping resistance and structural connections.

Overall, Pentagon reports rate the class as more survivable than previous LPDs, but question whether they are survivable enough for the modern environment. This reflects the horns of their basic design dilemma. If a ship is made very large, it offers peacetime efficiencies and better capability per ton, but its cost will rise to a level that pushes it toward the addition of advanced radars, defensive systems, etc. These additions improve the odds that one’s ship won’t be lost and destroy the entire naval mission, but they also drive each ship’s price even higher.

The other classic approach to this problem is to build more but smaller ships, which tends to add costs by using more raw materials and building more hulls. On the other hand, cost per ship drops sharply – foreign LPDs tend to be somewhere between 1/3 to 1/10 the price of an LPD-17. With more hulls in the water, the loss of one ship is less likely to destroy an entire mission, and less expensive defensive systems can be used.

LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Program, Budgets & Timelines

Full flight deck view
(click to view full)

The original December 1996 US Navy contract was awarded to an industrial alliance led by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (formerly Litton Avondale, now Huntington Ingalls Industries), with General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Raytheon Electronic Systems and Intergraph Corporation, to design and construct the first of an anticipated 12 ships under the Navy’s LPD-17 program.

Avondale was supposed to build 8 of these ships, while Bath Iron Works would build 4 ships. In June 2002, however, a revised Memorandum of Understanding was signed with Northrop Grumman and Bath Iron Works. Northrop Grumman would be responsible for the construction of all LPD-17 San Antonio Class vessels, but they would trade construction of 4 of the USA $1.5 billion DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers to Bath Iron Works.

LPD-17 production, originally authorized for 11 or 12 vessels as functional replacements for 41 1960s-era ships, dropped to just 9 as cost spirals took their toll, and was eventually forced back up to 11 with extra spending. 2013 Navy budget documents show an average cost per ship of over $1.6 billion through all vessels, which offers the unusual phenomenon of no reduction in cost vs. the first ship of class.

According to official Pentagon budget documents, recent funding for the LPD-17 class has included:

Even by 2002, Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation (RDT&E) was mostly complete for this class, and the vast majority of funds spent under the program have been focused on building ships. Note that requests for a given year generally include both funds to finish building a ship, and funds for long lead-time items like engines, “government-furnished equipment” that isn’t bought by the shipbuilder, and other items that must be ordered early so construction of the next ship can start on time.

FY 2010 funding would technically buy 0 ships; it finishes LPD 26, and buys long lead time items for LPD 27. FY 2011 funding was the bare minimum, and the LPD 27 order hung on passing a FY 2012 budget. The final shipbuilding contract was placed in July 2012.

Timelines

Current and planned ships in this class, and key milestones include:

San Antonio Class LPDs – Timelines
(click to view full)

For some ships still in progress, we’ve noted discrepancies between announced or estimated dates earlier in a contract, and completion dates for key milestones. For ships that are already in service, noticing the time lapses between key stages for an individual ship, and in the progression of ships through a given stage, provides its own indication of problems that have arisen. The effect of August 2005’s Class 5 Hurricane Katrina can certainly be seen in several of the ship timelines above. So, too, can the effect of manufacturing quality problems.

Flight II: What’s Next

LPD Flight II changes
(click to view full)

The LPD-17s aren’t quite done production yet, but unless the shipyard receives new orders, that time is coming soon. HII’s response has been to look ahead, and look beyond amphibious ships.

An LX(R) competition looks to replace existing LSD-41/49 amphibious ships with up to 10 new amphibious support vessels, in the unlikely event that programs like the F-35 and SSBN(X) don’t gut US Navy procurement. The stated goal is 10 ships, with the 1st ship delivered between 2018 – 2022. HII’s response is the LPD Flight II, which keeps the same basic hull, but carries fewer Marines, holds less cargo, and removes a number of elements that add costs. Their stated target is a 30% cost reduction; unfortunately, that still makes their 23,000t design about twice as expensive as a foreign 17,000t LPD like the Dutch Johann De Witt. The benefits of using a mature production line and many common elements are real, but a $1.1 billion price tag per ship simply may not be affordable amidst hugely expensive programs and fiscal crises.

Fortunately for Huntington Ingalls, they didn’t stop there. Once they had stripped the LPD-17 design down and removed the hangar and some superstructure, they realized that they had a platform for other roles as well.

Joint Command and Control. The US Navy currently operates 4 dedicated command ships, all of which are over 30 years old. At some point soon, the Navy must either replace them of forego them. The LPD Flight IIs begin with advanced communication suites, and contain all the space one might require to house and run a full theater command. HII would have some decisions to make about organic on-board helicopter capability, but otherwise, most of the modifications would involve internal layouts and wiring. The big question remains the same: could this be done more cheaply by using another platform?

Hospital Ship. The USNS Comfort and USNS Mercy are converted oil supertankers, originally launched in 1975 and 1976. The San Antonio Class has an internal hospital with 24 beds; in contrast, the USA’s hospital ships can hold and care for up to 1,000 patients, complete with a full pharmacy, advanced tools like radiology, optometry, testing lab, etc. The LPD Flight II is far smaller than these 65,000t+ behemoths, but it does have a good deal of internal space that could be put to good use, and that capacity may be more than adequate for most deployments. Innovative approaches could even modify the Flight II’s enhanced deck space to stack containerized TransHospital systems, for medical satellite deployments ashore.

USNS Mercy actually sat pierside from 1991 – 2004, whereas a platform that could operate at lower cost would be easier and more tempting to deploy. If the Navy can get beyond its steeper acquisition cost.

LPD Flight II for BMD?
click for video

Ballistic Missile Defense. This seems like the most radical change, but it isn’t if you think of the ship as specialized for this air and space defense role. A Flight II BMD ship would remove the well deck, in favor of a deck elevator that leads down to a helicopter hangar. It would also add a superstructure with the 21′ AMDR-S radar that the Navy considers ideal for ballistic missile defense, but which current destroyers cannot carry. The AEGIS BMD combat system would be installed, and the space cleared by the removal of most LPD-17 Class superstructure would be used to mount vertical launch cells around the edges. Notional designs show a nearly-ridiculous 288 Mk.41 VLS cells, or they could cut the number of cells and improve survivability by switching to the same Mk.57 PVLS on board the DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class battlecruisers.

Effectively, a FLT II BMD aerospace warfare cruiser would create a more potent air and missile defense platform than current American destroyers, at a similar cost, in exchange for less versatility. US Navy 2009 estimates pegged a similar arsenal ship concept at around $2.55 billion, which still seems about right as a starting point. The Flight II BMD design would be more costly than existing LPD-17s, or existing DDG-51 Flight IIA BMD destroyers (around $1.8 – 2 billion). It might be cheaper than the $2.5 – 3 billion estimates rumored for DDG-51 Flight III destroyers, but it would have limited versatility. It has enough VLS cells to act as an air defense ship, but it would lack the speed required to perform the “plane guard” role for carriers on calm days. It’s possible to load some cells with VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles, and deploy an MH-60R helicopter from the under-deck hangar, but the ship itself wouldn’t have the systems needed to detect and track submarines. It would be a very effective arsenal ship for land attack with cruise missiles, but other ships and submarines can do the same thing, without putting such high-end BMD capability at risk.

That might be an acceptable trade, depending on the Navy’s commitment to leadership of American missile defense efforts. With discussions regarding DDG 51 Flight IV focusing on power-hungry rail guns and lasers, the Flight II’s power generation capabilities could give them a unique defensive niche. On the other hand, Flight II BMD ships would probably have to be paid for by sacrificing DDG-51 destroyers. The class’ lead shipyard Bath Iron Works needs those destroyers to remain a major shipbuilding concern, which means HII would be cannibalizing its own DDG-51 production.

LPD-17 Program: Performance Problems

(click to view full)

The LPD-17 program has done some things well. Reduced operational costs and an improved capability to incorporate technological advances over its 40-year service life were essential design objectives for LPD 17. In working to accomplish these objectives, the design team incorporated hundreds of suggestions and recommendations from more than 1,000 sailors and Marines in the “Design for Ownership” process. Simulation and modeling were used heavily, and virtual crews drawn from other areas of the US Navy took “virtual tours” of the design zones of the ship via a 3D model at initial reviews, at 50% design reviews, and at 90% design reviews. Cargo functions received particular attention.

Meanwhile, the entire project alliance worked together at the same location along with the project sponsor, in order to maximize communication. Those efforts show through in many aspects of the ships’ design.

Unfortunately, the LPD-17 Class has experienced a number of long-running problems, particularly those ships built at the Avondale shipyard near New Orleans.

Financial. Overall, the class’ financial and budgetary performance has been a long-running failure. The LPD 17 San Antonio was initially budgeted at $954 million, but ended with a final price tag of about $1.76 billion. The LPD 18 New Orleans was budgeted at $762 million, but finished at a similar cost to LPD 17.

Northrop Grumman isn’t solely to blame for these overruns. The need to tear down and rebuild completed sections of the LPD 17 San Antonio was a major cause of its cost increases, while workforce attrition rates as high as 35% annually led to its construction delays. According to San Antonio Express-News, a less obvious but equally consequential source of trouble was a computer design program dubbed 3D CAD, which was touted for its ability to give 3-dimensional views, but was not up to the task of designing an entire ship.

What’s far more disturbing is the fact that these massive cost increases over the original $800 million projections have continued throughout the class’ lifetime. Indeed, they showed no improvement at all. That’s never supposed to happen, but FY 2013 budget documents show an average $1.6 billion cost over the full 11 ships.

Workmanship. The 2nd performance failure has involved ship quality. Northrop Grumman delivered the 1st ship, USS San Antonio [LPD 17], in the summer of 2005, but difficulties with her INSURV inspections and acceptance sea trials forced a delay of almost 3 years before her 1st mission, which featured a major mechanical breakdown. A similar fate befell the USS New Orleans [LPD 18], and those delays are clearly visible in the timelines, above.

In contrast, USS Mesa Verde [LPD 19], which was built at Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls yard in Mississippi instead of its Avondale yard near New Orleans, performed well in sea trials, and has been reliable in service.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t the end of the class’ problems. In 2010 a number of ships of class, especially the Avondale-built ships, discovered very serious problems that took them out of service for difficult repairs. They included USS San Antonio [LPD 17], USS New Orleans [LPD 18], USS Green Bay [LPD 20], and USS New York [LPD 21].

Once again, the bright spot was USS Mesa Verde, built at the Ingalls yard in Pascagoula, MS, which moved to substitute for USS San Antonio on a recent deployment.

Governments have generally ignored this shipyard quality problem. A $50 million grant from the state of Louisiana did help Northrop Grumman modernize production at Avondale, and another $98.6 million in federal funding has also filtered down to local NGSS shipyards in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Nevertheless, scathing Navy inspector general reviews that detailed shoddy construction and basic workmanship problems at Avondale are cause for legitimate concern in areas that will not be fixed by modernization alone.

Eventually, Northrop Grumman spun off its shipbuilding units as Huntington Ingalls Industries, and moved to close the Avondale, LA shipyard. That may finally resolve the issue – after more than $15 billion had been spent on a supposed cornerstone of the future amphibious fleet.

The Vicious Cycle

The San Antonio class’ problems fit into a larger set of trends. The Navy and Congress make life very difficult for American military shipbuilders, who also operate in ways that come back to bite them. Key challenges include yo-yoing political budget projections and military requirements. That problem leads to “binge and purge” hiring cycles, impairs shipyard effectiveness, and ultimately raises costs, while lowering quality. The growing costs of US Navy ships then feed back into this phenomenon, as budgets and projections break, and require drastic changes to fix.

On the contractor side, lowball initial prices, followed by cost increases once projects begin, leads to inevitable build reductions part-way through. Which means fewer ships per dollar, as R&D dollars are amortized over fewer ships. The Pentagon is often a collaborator in these games, assuring lawmakers of the initial contract’s reasonableness long after outside reports question their realism. Such approaches may ensure shipyard work in the near term, but they also feed into yo-yoing federal budgets, as cost growth makes it impossible for the Pentagon to fund all of the programs it has started.

Poor accountability and oversight can compound these issues, and has, but good oversight alone won’t remove them.

Ultimately, the US Navy loses the most. These escalating requirements and costs mean fewer ships overall. While the resulting fleet may be more capable, the number of contingencies it can cover, and the setbacks that it can safely absorb, drop. Even as the entire process shrinks a US industrial base that no longer builds many civilian vessels, and so has little resiliency.

It’s a vicious cycle – one that is damaging American global power.

LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Contracts & Key Events (1996-Present)

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts were issued by the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in Washington, DC.

FY 2015 – 2019

LPD Flight II
click for video

June 7/19: MK 46 Mod 2 General Dynamics won a $25.6 million firm-fixed-price contract to produce MK 46 Modification 2 Gun Weapon Systems for use on modern Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and Landing Platform Dock (LPD) ships. MK46 30mm all-weather, day/night, fully stabilized weapon system is a remotely operated system that uses a high-velocity cannon for shipboard self-defense against small, high-speed surface targets. It is the main deck gun for LPD-17 ships and is the secondary gun battery for LCS, and Zumwalt Class ships. The contract is for the procurement of two 30mm MK 46 MOD 2 GWSs for the LCS Surface Warfare Mission module, two 30mm MK 46 MOD 2 GWSs for the LPD-29, two 30mm MK 46 MOD 2 GWSs for the LPD-30, and associated spare parts. General Dynamics will perform work within the US and is expected to be finished by September 2021.

May 23/19: Advanced Planning Services Q.E.D. Systems won a $19.6 million contract modification in support of Navy amphibious ship classes LPD 17, LSD 41 and LSD 49. The deal provides for advanced planning services in support of Chief of Naval Operations-scheduled availabilities, continuous maintenance availabilities (CMAVs), inactivation CMAVs, sustainment availabilities, phased modernization availabilities, re-commissioning availabilities, continuous maintenance and emergent maintenance windows of opportunity. The LPD 17 USS San Antonio is the lead ship of the San Antonio Class. The San Antonio Class is the latest Class of US Navy amphibious force ships. The LSD 41 or USS Whidbey Island is part of the Whidbey Island Class and the LSD 49 or USS Harpers Ferry is part of the Harpers Ferry Class dock landing ships. Q.E.D. systems will perform work in Virginia, California, and Washington and the Pentagon expects work to be finished by May next year.

September 21/18: Design acceleration The Navy is accelerating the LPD 17 Flight II development program. The service is awarding a $11.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to Huntington Ingalls (HII), allowing the company to speed up the development of the Flight II ship design. LPD-17 San Antonio class amphibious assault support vessels are currently entering service and will be used to embark, transport, land, and support elements of a US Marine Corps Landing Force. Flight II is the next design step of the LPD 17s, these vessels have the same basic hull, but carry fewer Marines, hold less cargo, and remove costly elements. Flight II ships can be configured to serve as a Joint Control and Command Center, as a hospital ship or fulfil ballistic missile defense roles. Work will be performed at HII’s Pascagoula facility and is scheduled for completion by February 2019.

August 6/18: FLT II up-next The Naval Sea Systems Command is contracting shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls for initial work on LPD 30. The awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee, not-to-exceed contract allows for the procurement of long lead time material and non-recurring engineering activities at a cost of $165.51 million. LPD 30 will be the first Flight II ship of the LPD 17 Amphibious Transport Dock ship class. LPD-17 San Antonio class amphibious assault support vessels are just entering service with the US Navy, and 11 ships of this class are eventually slated to replace up to 41 previous ships. LPD Flight II, keeps the same basic hull, but carries fewer Marines, holds less cargo, and removes a number of elements that add costs. The LPD Flight IIs begin with advanced communication suites and contain all the space one might require to-house and run a full theater command, they can also be equipped to serve in a Ballistic Missile Defense role. Work will be performed at multiple location throughout the continental US, including Pascagoula, Mississippi; Beloit, Wisconsin; Devens, Massachusetts; King of Prussia, Pennsylvania and Warminster, Pennsylvania, among others. Work is expected to be completed by December 2020.

June 14/18: Shakedown BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair is being awarded a $18.9 million contract in support of the Navy’s LPD 27 amphibious transport dock ship. BAE system will work towards the accomplishment of the post shakedown availability for the vessel. It will provide efforts including program management, planning, engineering, design, liaison, scheduling, labor and procurement of incidental material in support of the USS Portland. The USS Portland was commissioned on April 21st and is a San Antonio class amphibious assault support vessel. Its mission is to embark, transport, land, and support elements of a US Marine Corps Landing Force. It is designed to operate the Marines’ MV-22 Osprey, hovercrafts and amphibious armored personnel carriers. The Portland and its sister ships will operate as part of larger Amphibious Task Forces (ATFs) in conjunction with a full set of airpowers, additional assault ships, and air and sub-surface defense vessels. San Antonio Class vessels are potential command ships for US and joint task forces and could make excellent UAV hosts and controllers. All work will be performed in San Diego, California, and is expected to be completed by July 2019.

February 20/18: Contracts-LPD-29 Huntington Ingalls received Friday, February 16, a $1.43 billion US Navy contract for the procurement of the detail design and construction of landing platform dock 29—the latest addition to the service’s San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks. Work will take place mostly in Pascagoula, Mississippi, but also in Crozet, Virginia, Beloit, Wisconsin, New Orleans, Louisiana, with other efforts to take place across the continental United States. Contract completion is scheduled for July 2023.

November 27/17: Contracts BAE Systems has been awarded a $8.7 million US Navy contract modification to complete the fitting out availability process for the USS Portland (LPD-27) and for continued efforts associated with the post shakedown availability for the USS John P. Murtha (LPD-26). Work on the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships will take place at BAE’s San Diego facility in California with work on the USS John P. Murtha scheduled to be completed by February 2018, followed by the USS Portland in October 2018.

August 24/17: A Huntington Ingalls-built Amphibious Transport Dock vessel has completed sea trails in the Gulf of Mexico. The future USS Portland will be the US Navy’s 11th San Antonio-class when it is commissioned into service next spring. During the trails, conducted by the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey and completed last Friday, the vessel underwent dockside checks and demonstrations of major systems while at sea. Included in the testing was the ship’s main propulsion engineering and ship control systems, combat and communications systems, damage control, food service and crew support. The crew also underwent a full power run, steering, boat handling and anchoring on the ship, before returning to to Huntington Ingalls’ shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The Navy will take possession of the ship this fall.

July 7/17: Future US Navy amphibious transport dock, the USS Portland, has successfully completed Builder’s Trials and has returned to its shipyard in Mississippi. The Huntington Ingalls-built vessel will now be prepared for Acceptance Trials, where the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey will formally assess the ship’s capabilities. The Portland will be the 11th ship of the LPD 17 San Antonio-class to join the Navy fleet next year. It will be home ported in San Diego, Calif., and will deploy combat and support US Marine Expeditionary Units and brigades.

July 6/17: Huntington Ingalls has received a $218 million contract modification for advance construction activities on the San Antonio-class LPD 29 amphibious transport dock ship. Under the agreement, the firm will provide long-lead time manufacturing materials and construction in support of the program, running until February 2018. Work will be carried out at Pascagoula, Miss., Beloit, Wash., and at other sites across the United States.

January 15/16: The US Navy’s San Antonio class warships may be fitted with missile defense radars and lasers according the a spokesperson for Huntington Ingalls. Discussions are apparently ongoing to have the system installed on LPD vessels as they have ample available space to store and create the energy necessary to run the radar and weapons. Such an addition would greatly increase the defensive capabilities of the amphibious transport ship, and certainly fits in line with the Navy’s future plans to make all their vessels more well rounded and capable of operating defensively and offensively.

December 8/15: The US Navy has awarded Huntington Ingalls $200 million to build the next amphibious transport dock (LPD) warship. The advanced procurement contract will fund the final of twelve of the San Antonio class ships to be commissioned by the Navy. The vessels are to be used by both the Navy and Marine Corps and are to be utilized for the embarking and landing of Marines and their supplies as well as supporting them across a variety of operational tasks. The John P. Murtha San Antonio class LPD was launched in March and was the programs most cost effective and advanced to date.

Oct 20/14: LX-R. It hasn’t exactly been a secret that the US Navy has wanted LPD-17 Flight II as its replacement for existing LSD-41/49 ships (q.v. July 25-28/14, Dec 6/13, April 9/13). Now Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has signed an internal memo recommending the use of LPD-17 Flight II ships to replace existing LSD-41/49 ships, rather than rebuilding existing LSDs with changes or opening competition to other designs. The cost?

Start with an estimate of $2.02 billion for LPD 28, which is higher than the original LPD-17’s final figure, in order to keep the production line going until LX(R). The Navy believes themselves to be about $1 billion short in terms of securing that funding. Regardless of what happens with LPD 28, the estimate is $1.64 billion in construction costs for the lead LX(R) Flight II ship, and $1.4 million for the next 10 planned hulls. Plus any funds required to do further design work that fixes existing LPD-17 issues.

Even assuming a multiyear procurement block buy that cuts costs over 10%, it’s hard to see that as affordable, especially in light of the USA’s expected fiscal situation and the demands of other programs. The next major step for the program is the Q2 FY2015 Milestone A review to settle the final outline, then a JROC review in Q1 2016. Purchases would begin in FY 2020, with delivery of the 1st ship expected in FY 2025. Sources: Inside Defense, “Senior Navy Officials Tell Mabus LPD-17 Variant Is Best Option For LX(R)” and “Mabus Signs Decision Memo: LPD-17 Variant Preferred Platform For LX(R)” | USNI, “Memo: Hull Based on San Antonio Design is Navy’s Preferred Option for Next Generation Amphib”.

FY 2014

LPD 24 & 25 commissioned; Testing reports still negative; Lots of pressure to use Flight II for LX(R) – but can the Navy afford it?

LPD 25 trials
click for video

July 25-28/14: LX-R. The Navy and Marines have finished the LX(R) program’s in-depth Analysis Of Alternatives (AOA) v2.0. Rebuilding a modernized or enlarged version of the current LSD-49 Whidbey Island Class isn’t on the table for some reason. Instead, they’re focused on either a budget-killing LPD-17 Flight II (q.v. Dec 6/13), a license-built foreign design that may have trouble with higher USN survivability requirements, a clean sheet design that would be risky and potentially expensive, or some combination of JHSVs, MLP ships, and others that wouldn’t really duplicate what the LSDs do.

The Us Navy is reportedly aiming for about 11-ship class that will average about $1.43 billion per hull once they’re in production, or almost $16 billion in production costs alone. First, this figure is also substantially more than many other countries have paid for comparable ships. In many cases, it’s twice as much. One wonders where the Navy expects to find this money, given other major programs like aircraft carriers, submarines, the F-35B/C, growing healthcare costs, etc.. All at the same time as demographics start really stressing social programs, and a shaky fiscal posture for the USA as a whole.

Unsurprisingly, some high-level officials think the AoA could wind up having a v4.0 before all is said and done. Or maybe it’s time for a major break with NAVSEA tradition: a serious examination of each requirement’s defensibility, in light of the AoA. There are some signs that the Navy is asking more questions than usual this time. Sources: Breaking Defense, “‘$1 Billion-Plus Short’: Amphib Add Isn’t Enough, So Navy Wants To Repurpose It” | USNI, “Cost Continues To Drive Quest For Next Amphib”.

July 17-25/14: Political. The Senate Appropriations Committee approves a $489.6 billion base FY 2015 budget, plus $59.7 billion in supplemental funding. It includes $800 million to begin funding what would become LPD 28, to fulfill section 123 of S. 2410. Even with $243 million added from FY 2013, the Navy would only have a bit more than half of the monies required, and the SAC is also mindful of the industrial agreement with Northrop Grumman (now HII) and GD Bath Iron Works (q.v. June 8/14):

“While Congress is not a party to this agreement, the Committee directs the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2015, on the Navy’s options and potential courses of action to fulfill the requirements of the SWAP 1 agreement preceding or concurrent with when LPD 28 is placed under contract.”

The House hasn’t voted any money, and the Navy is less enthused. For starters, Sean Stackley makes it clear that they won’t issue an LPD 28 contract until all of the required funds have been appropriated. He adds that the Navy is more interested in funding the RCOH refueling of CVN 73 USS George Washington, and in other amphibious ship programs. Sources: US Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Committee Approves FY 2015 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill – Report: Department of Defense” | Breaking Defense, “‘$1 Billion-Plus Short’: Amphib Add Isn’t Enough, So Navy Wants To Repurpose It”.

June 8/14: Industrial. The Navy, HII, GD-BIW and Congress are all entangled in a ship allocation controversy, as a result of a 2002 MoU that shifted work on 3 LPD-17 ships to Northrop Grumman (now HII), in return for corresponding destroyer awards to GD Bath Iron Works.

Everything was fine until Congress began placing funding in the proposed FY 2015 budget budget for a 12th LPD 28 ship (q.v. May 23/14). If that goes ahead, does HII have to take away one of its destroyers under the current multi-year contract, and give it to GD-BIW? Bath Iron Works says absolutely, yes, and we consider that legally binding. HII says that GD-BIW winning construction of DDG 116 as an extra ship, via competitive bid, satisfies the terms as their 4th extra destroyer. The Navy says “we didn’t want LPD 28, leave us alone.” The lawyers say “job security!” Sources: Defense News, “Fallout From 12th LPD: Fine Print in Old Deal Could Cost Yard a Destroyer”.

May 23/14: Politics. The Senate Armed Services Committee has completed the mark-up of the annual defense bill, which passed by a 25-1 vote. The section relevant to the LPD-17s is explained this way:

“Provides authority for the Secretary of the Navy to use unobligated funds from underperforming programs to transfer up to $650 million for the acquisition of a 12th ship of the USS San Antonio – class of amphibious ships. Acquisition of this ship would enable the Marine Corps to better support the Asia – Pacific defense strategy. Provides permissive authority to incrementally fund LPD-28.”

Sources: US Senate Armed Services Committee, “Senate Committee on Armed Services Completes Markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015”.

April 4/14: LPD 24. USS Arlington is commissioned by the US Navy in Philadelphia, PA. During the ceremony and follow-on tours, the ship’s 684-foot flight deck boasted a Marine MV-22 Osprey, UH-1 Huey, AH-1 Cobra and CH-53 Sea Stallion.

The name honors the first responders and the 184 victims who died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on Sept 11/01. The ship’s sponsor is Joyce Rumsfeld, the wife of then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was in the building when the plane hit. Donald Rumsfeld initially went to the crash scene and offered some assistance, before heading back into the building by 10:00 am. Sources: Wikipedia, “United Airlines Flight 93” | US Navy, “In Emotional Ceremony, USS Arlington Joins the Fleet”.

USS Arlington

March 1/14: LPD 25. USS Somerset is commissioned by the US Navy in Philadelphia, PA.

The name honors United Flight 93, whose passengers won the battle for control of their 757 jetliner on Sept 11/01, albeit at the cost of all of their lives. It crashed in Somerset County, PA. It was reportedly headed for Congress or the White House. Sources: US Navy’s Navy Live Blog, “USS Somerset Commissioning Ceremony” | South Jersey Times, “USS Somerset sets sail down Delaware River after Philadelphia commissioning”.

USS Somerset

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The short version re: the LPD-17s:

“The Navy is working to correct deficiencies identified during IOT&E that led DOT&E to assess the ship not operationally effective, not operationally suitable, and not survivable in a hostile environment. However, correction of a number of these deficiencies has not yet been verified by follow-on operational testing and some deficiencies have not been corrected [including issues from Shock Trial Reports].”

DOT&E says that some critical systems have been improved, but “the Navy has not yet demonstrated the Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence capabilities needed to support LPD-17 when performing amphibious assault operations,” and the Shipboard Wide Area Network continues to attract scrutiny. they also maintain an interest in “reliability problems with amphibious support equipment and propulsion equipment,” “integration problems with self-defense in multiple warfare areas,” and want demonstrations of improvements re: performance issues created by the AN/APS-48Es radar mast shroud.

Reliability is also an ongoing issue, and DOT&E wants measurements for the ships as a whole, while flagging the gun systems, Magnetic Signature Control System, and SSDS Mk 2-based combat system.

Dec 6/13: LX-R. The US Navy and Marine Corps are working with HII and GD’s NASSCO to understand what’s driving costs for the proposed LX(R) follow-on amphibious ships, after the March 12/13 approval of LX(R) as a pre-major defense acquisition program. The first ship wouldn’t be ordered until FY 2019, and wouldn’t arrive until FY 2025.

CBO and Navy reports of $1.4 – 1.6 billion per ship have to be alarming. First, that’s almost as much as the 27,000 ton LPD-17s, which are already far over budget, to produce a 16,000 ton ship. Second, other countries are building similar 16,000 ton LSD/LPD ships for a bit more than a quarter of that amount. It’s well and good to jaw about a $15.4 billion, 11-ship program for medium size amphibious ships, but its future looks bleak if you project demographic effects, and overlay the other shipbuilding programs that will be underway and competing for limited funds.

The LX(R) alternatives being explored reportedly include resuming production of the LSD-41/49 ships, a modified San Antonio-class LPD-17 ship per HII’s “Flight II” pitch, a wholly new ship design, and an assessment of foreign-designed dock landing ships. Using cheaper commercial components, including propulsion systems, is also a possibility. Sources: Inside Defence, “Eying New Amphibious Ship, Navy Conducts LX(R) Affordability ‘Deep Dive'” | DoD Buzz, “Navy Considers Commercial Technology for New Amphib”.

Dec 6/13: LPD 21 moves. It’s December – time for New Yorkers to head to Florida! USS New York [LPD 21] continues this tradition, as she changes her home port from NNS Norfolk, VA to NNS Mayport, FL.

The entire 3-ship Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) will eventually be based there, as a replacement for the decomMSioned FFG-7 Class frigates USS Underwood and USS Klakring. USS Iwo Jima [LHD-7] and USS Fort McHenry [LSD-45] are slated to join USS New York in 2014. Sources: USN, “USS New York Changes Homeport to Naval Station Mayport”.

$6.2 million is committed immediately, and the award uses a hodgepodge of Navy budget lines: FY 2005, 2012, and 2014 shipbuilding and conversion; and FY 2014 operations and maintenance. $1.8 million will expire on Sept 30/14 (N00024-10-C-2205).

$730,431 is committed immediately, and $215,383 will expire on Sept 30/14. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. This contract was competitively procured, with 4 proposals received (N00024-12-C-2400).

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA, and is expected to be complete by May 2014. This contract was competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 3 offers received by the Norfolk Ship Support Activity in Norfolk, VA (N50054-14-C-1401).

Oct 18/13: LPD 25 delivered. Somerset is formally handed over to the US Navy at the Avondale shipyard. Sources: HII, Oct 18/13 release.

May 4/13: LPD 23 commissioned. The US Navy commissions LPD 23 as USS Anchorage, in her namesake city of Anchorage, AK. Her home port will be San Diego, CA. US Navy.

USS Anchorage

April 12/13: Naming. The last San Antonio Class ship is among the 7 named by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who actually stuck to class naming conventions this time instead of veering into political partisanship.

LPD 27 will become USS Portland, becoming the 3rd ship in the fleet’s history to beat that name. CA-33 was a World War II heavy cruiser, named after Portland, ME. LSD-37 was also an amphibious assault ship, which was decommissioned shortly after Operation Iraqi Freedom began. It was named for Portland, ME and Portland, OR. LPD-27 is named after Portland, OR. Pentagon | Oregon Live.

April 9/13: LX(R)? USMC Commandant Gen. James Amos publicly recommends that the Navy replace its 16,360 ton LSD-41 Whidbey Island Class ships with a San Antonio Class derivative, provided it can be made affordable. The question is whether HII’s stripped-down LPD Flight II proposal drives enough costs out of the base platform to make sense. $1.5 billion per ship won’t cut it for LSD replacement, and even HII’s touted 30% savings of $1 billion for a 23,165t ship would be about double the cost of capable foreign LSDs like the 17,000t Rotterdam/JDW Class.

The Navy is currently conducting an Analysis of Alternatives for its notional 10-ship LS(X), which aims to deliver its first ships to the Navy between 2018 – 2022. It’s called LX(R) because they may want configurability for a wider range of missions than the existing LSDs. The AoA is due in September 2013. Sources: DoD Buzz, “Amos: Replace LSD amphib fleet with LPDs” | Defense News, “Different Missions Might Await New USN Amphib” | USNI News, “Second Act for San Antonio?”.

April 9/13: UAV test.Insitu Inc. announces a successful 1st maritime flight for the RQ-21A UAV from LPD 19, the USS Mesa Verde. The RQ-21A is based on Insitu’s Integrator platform, and was picked as the USMC’s small UAV back in July 2010.

The flight comes after 3 months of land-based development testing and operational assessment, and the RQ-21A’s outstanding endurance for its size will make it an important part of the San Antonio Class’ onboard equipment.

April 6/13: LPD 24 commissioned. USS Arlington is commissioned at Naval Station Norfolk, VA. US Navy Live blog.

At the time of award, a $5.5 million option is also exercised for 2 remanufactured MK 49 launch packs, with Mod 3 updates and associated hardware. They’ll equip the Freedom Class ships LCS 13 and LCS 15.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by December 2015. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304c1 (N00024-11-C-5448).

Dec 7/12: Support. Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula, MS receives a $54.5 million contract modification, to exercising the 3rd of 4 options associated with the Feb 16/10 award. HII will perform Life Cycle Engineering and support services on San Antonio Class ships, with $12.9 million obligated at contract award. The total value of this contract is now $157.9 million.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2013 (N00024-10-C-2203). See also HII.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA (90.53%), and Chesapeake, VA (9.47%), and is expected to be complete by May 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $2.8 million will be obligated at time of award. This contract was competitively procured via FedBizOpps, with 4 proposals received (N00024-10-C-2204).

Nov 27/12: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $41.9 million modification, exercising Option Year 4 for LPD-17 class Integrated Shipboard Electronic Systems life cycle engineering and support services. Last year, it was $40 million.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (98%) and Norfolk, VA (2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2013. $7.3 million is committed on the contract’s award, and $703,893 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-10-C-2205).

Nov 5/12: LPD 24 trials. LPD 24 Arlington successfully completes US Navy INSURV acceptance trials. She is now set to be commissioned in Spring 2013. HII.

FY 2012

Aug 24/12: LPD 24. LPD 24 Arlington returns from successful builder’s sea trials in the Gulf of Mexico. The real key is US Navy sea trials, which are next. HII.

Aug 1/12: Bolted. A new issue involving improperly installed bolts has emerged in the latest ships built by the Avondale shipyard near New Orleans. The Navy’s acceptance of LPD 23 Anchorage is now delayed, and LPD 25 Somerset is also affected.

An Ingalls inspector discovered the issue, which could lead engine mountings to shear under sudden shock, or loosen enough over time to set up damaging vibrations in the ship’s propulsion systems. Fitted bolts that don’t meet the ultra-tight tolerances for engine mountings are being replaced, and the Navy is also checking the 520 applicable bolts on every other Avondale-built ship. The problem is apparently confined to the Avondale shipyard, which has been the source of so many previous problems with the class. Ingalls-built ships from the Mississippi shipyard are unaffected. Gannett’s Navy Times.

More workmanship problems

July 28/12: LPD 25 christened. Nearly 1,800 guests attend the christening of LPD 25 Somerset, at HII’s company’s Avondale shipyard near New Orleans. LPD 25 is named to honor the courage of the passengers and crew members of United Airlines Flight 93, who fought the hijackers and brought their plane down near Shanksville in Somerset County, PA. US Navy | HII.

July 27/12: LPD 27 ordered. Huntington Ingalls Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives the main order contract for LPD 27: a sole-source $1.514 billion fixed-price-incentive contract modification. When added to previous long-lead item orders, the shipbuilding cost is $1.8 billion, with key “government furnished equipment” like weapons on top of that.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (82%), Crozet, VA (4%), Beloit, WI (2%), and New Orleans, LA (1%), with other efforts performed at various sites throughout the United States (11%). Work is expected to be complete by June 2017 (N00024-06-C-2222). See also HII release.

LPD 27 main order

June 25/12: LPD 23 completes INSURV.HII announces that LPD 23 Anchorage has returned to her Avondale, LA shipyard, after successfully passing 3 days of Navy trials in the Gulf of Mexico. Delivery to the US Navy is set for Q3 (summer) FY 2012.

May 21/12: LPD 23 trials. LPD 23 Anchorage returns to Avondale, LA from successful builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico. The ship will now prepare for acceptance sea trials by the U.S. Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV), in preparation for delivery later in 2012. HII.

May 19/12: USS San Diego. The US Navy commissions LPD 22 into the 3rd Fleet as USS San Diego, based in San Diego. US Navy.

USS San Diego

May 15/12: LPD 27 lead-in. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a maximum $133.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for advance buys of LPD 27 long-lead-time materials and pre-construction activities. HII confirms that this is their 5th long-lead materials contract for LPD 27. This brings total long-lead contracts for this ship, from all contractors, to $419.6 million.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to complete by June 2017 (N00024-06-C-2222).

April 13/12: LPD 19. Small business qualifier MarineTec, a joint venture between Marine Hydraulics International, Inc., and Tecnico Corp. in Norfolk, VA, wins a $10 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for USS Mesa Verde’s [LPD 19] phased maintenance availability (PMA). They’ll perform miscellaneous structural, mechanical, and electrical repairs, and the contract runs until September 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11.

This contract was competitively procured via the Norfolk Ship Support Activity’s solicitation website, with 4 proposals solicited and 3 offers received (N50054-12-C-1203).

March 19/12: General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, CA receives a $29.3 million contract modification for post shakedown work on USS San Diego [LPD 22] and fitting-out work on USS Anchorage [LPD 23]. Work will include program management, planning, engineering, design, liaison, scheduling, labor, and procurement of incidental material.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by December 2014. US Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC, is the contracting activity (N00024-12-C-2400). See also Oct 7/11 entry.

March 14/12: LPD 22 captain relieved. Rear Adm. Gerard Hueber, commander of Expeditionary Strike Group 3, relieves Cmdr. Jon Haydel as captain of the “Pre-Commissioning Unit San Diego,” 1 day before it was due to leave its Pascagoula, MS shipyard for San Diego. Haydel was reportedly well-liked, and the Navy did not disclose the reasons. He was reassigned to Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet headquarters, pending an investigation into the “personal misconduct” allegations. Stars and Stripes.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by February 2018 (N00024-11-C-2404).

Feb 23/12: LPD 27 lead-in. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a not-to-exceed $70 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification for advance procurement of long-lead-time materials in support of LPD 27. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by April 2012 (N00024-06-C-2222). This pushes announced LPD 27 long-lead contracts to $230.8 million.

HII notes that this is the 4th advance procurement contract for LPD 27 since October 2010, adding that these contracts are used for items like main engines, diesel generators, electrical switchboards, deck equipment and fire extinguishing systems. If they’re not ready in advance, they won’t be on hand when HII needs them, which would delay the build.

Dec 20/11: LPD 22 delivered. The US Navy takes delivery of LPD 22 San Diego. The crew will move aboard the ship on Jan 4/11 to begin the certification process, before a short Caribbean sail in mid-March 2012, followed by passage through Panama and then a sail up to San Diego for commissioning in May 2012.

The ship will be homeported in San Diego, alongside USS New Orleans [LPD 18] and USS Green Bay [LPD 20]. Mississippi Press-News.

Dec 6/11: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $60.4 million contract modification to make and test LPD 26’s Integrated Shipboard Electronics, with an option for LPD 27 that would raise it to $111.3 million. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by February 2017 (N00024-11-C-2404).

Nov 22/11: Huntington Ingalls, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS received a $51.3 million contract modification, to provide life cycle engineering and support services for LPD-17 San Antonio Class integrated shipboard electronic systems. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2012. $104,981 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00024-10-C-2203).

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (98%), and Norfolk, VA (2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2012. $719,252 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00024-10-C-2205).

Oct 7/11:Defense News reports that LPD 22 San Diego was damaged in late September 2011, during builder’s sea trials. A relief valve was installed backwards, causing part of the ship’s ballast system to overpressurize and damage 3 ballast tanks. The ballast tanks are used to lower the ship in the water, in order to flood its well decks.

Despite this mishap, the ballasting and de-ballasting tests were completed successfully, and Navy INSURV acceptance trials are expected to take place in November 2011.

Oct 7/11: General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, CA receives a $37.4 million cost-plus-fee contract for USS San Diego’s final fitting-out work, which could rise to $134.5 million if all options are exercised. That’s an unusually large figure.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 2 offers received (N00024-12-C-2400).

FY 2011

Testing troubles. HII spinoff. NSSA suspended.

LPD 24 Arlington launch
(click to view full)

Sept 7/11: BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair in San Diego, CA receives a $12.1 million contract modification for the USS Green Bay’s [LPD 20] FY 2011 phased maintenance availability (PMA). PMAs provide for an extensive renovation and modernization of an LPD class ship, including alterations and repairs as well as inspection and testing to all ships systems and components ensuring safe and dependable operation of the ship. the Pentagon says that it won’t require a dry-docking.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by May 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. The US Navy’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages the contract (N00024-10-C-4407).

July 13/11: LPD 20 XO relieved.Gannett’s Navy Times reports that USS Green Bay’s Executive Officer was relieved of duty by the Commodore of Amphibious Squadron 1 “after an investigation substantiated allegations of personal misconduct”. The ship is on deployment in the Persian Gulf, and Jones is being reassigned to temporary duties in San Diego with Expeditionary Strike Group 3.

The report also confirms LPD 20’s 1st mission, which began in February 2011.

July 12/11: LPD 27 long-lead. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a maximum $98.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for advance procurement of long-lead-time materials in support of LPD 27, the 11th ship of the LPD class. This pushes LPD 27 long-lead contracts to $160.8 million, and HII notes that the category covers “main engines and diesel generators and other equipment, including electrical switchboards, deck equipment and fire extinguishing systems.”

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by January 2012 (N00024-06-C-2222). See also HII release, Oct 20/10 entry.

May 25/11: LPD 26 begins. The official start of fabrication on LPD 26 signifies that 100 tons of steel have been cut and fabricated, using Ingalls’ robotic plasma arc cutting machines. Huntington Ingalls says that the next milestone will be the ship’s keel laying, scheduled for the first quarter of 2012. LPD 26 is scheduled to be launched in Q3 of 2014, and delivered to the Navy in Q4 of 2015.

With respect to other ships, LPD 22 San Diego will undergo sea trials later in 2011; LPD 23 Anchorage is currently 82% complete, and is expected to be delivered in Q2 2012. LPD 25 Somerset is more than 50% complete, and will be launched “in 2012.” HII.

May 6/11: Maintenance termination.NAVSEA announces that it has terminated Earl Industries, LLC’s multi-ship, multi-option (MSMO) maintenance contract for the San Antonio Class. The move comes in response to:

“…Navy findings of improper work performed and concern regarding Earl Industries’ quality assurance program and the company’s ability to control the quality and documentation of work it performs. Those concerns were triggered by the number and severity of corrective action reports issued… “The company’s performance on this contract was not in keeping with the type of quality work the Navy expects from our industry partners,” said NAVSEA Commander Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy. “These failures are unacceptable, and we have lost confidence in Earl’s ability to continue successfully performing this same type of work… under the MSMO contract.”

It’s the most severe option – a complete termination of all work in process by the Norfolk, VA contractor, as well as all options for future scheduled and unscheduled maintenance work on the class over a 5-year period. In place of Earl’s contract, the Navy plans to compete scheduled Chief of Naval Operations availability and all necessary Emergent Maintenance/ Continuous Maintenance work for the San Antonio-class ships homeported in Norfolk, among all eligible contractors in the Norfolk area.

The Virginia Pilot’s “Earl Industries’ $75M Navy contract: What went wrong?” has a pertinent examination, which notes that Earl won the contract, despite having a higher bid, on the basis of Navy evaluations of “exceptional” performance on past contracts. The firm retains maintenance contracts involving the USN’s carriers.

April 20/11: USN suspends NSSA’s warrant. The US Navy announces that it has suspended the oversight authority of its Norfolk Ship Support Activity, at Norfolk Naval Station, VA, which is responsible for supervising maintenance work done by private companies on Navy surface ships in the mid-Atlantic region. Investigations are also underway concerning specific repairs to the USS San Antonio [LPD-17].

By suspending the command’s oversight authority – formally known as its “technical warrant” – the Navy essentially said it no longer trusts it to make sure work by contractors is being done properly. The issue is reportedly that the government can’t tell, based on required reports, what work was done and what wasn’t.

Thomas J. Murphy, who had been the command’s civilian executive director since 2004, was replaced in March 2011, and sources outside the Navy said several other officials at the command were also removed. Virginian Pilot | Information Dissemination | UPI.

NSSA suspended

April 1/11: LPD 26 contract. Northrop Grumman spinoff Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $1.496 billion fixed-price-incentive contract modification for all detail design and construction of LPD 26. That ship is the future USS John P. Murtha, unless the name is changed during a subsequent administration.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (82%); Crozet, VA (4%); Beloit, WI (2%); and New Orleans, LA (1%). Other efforts will be performed at various sites throughout the United States (11%). Work is expected to be complete by February 2016. The contract was not competitively procured (N00024-06-C-2222).

March 26/11: LPD 24 christened. Northrop Grumman Corporation’s shipbuilding sector, with the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps participating, christens LPD 24 as Arlington, in memory of those who lost their lives during the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon. NGC.

March 8/11: US Senate Armed Services Committee hearings get a spotlight on the LPD-17 program, as ranking member Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] says in his opening statement:

“From the first ship in this class, this program has displayed major problems in terms of safety, engineering, and the quality of workmanship. Those problems have been so widespread that they give rise to concern about a broader readiness problem afflicting our surface fleet. I am gratified by the leadership of the Atlantic Fleet Commander Admiral Harvey in starting to turn these problems around. But, I am perplexed by how we got to this point. And, as to the LPD-17 class of ships, how (with five delivered and four under construction) we have been left with a class of ships that, according to the Pentagon’s chief tester is ‘not effective, suitable and not survivable in combat.’ In addition to addressing this point, I would also like our witnesses to also address what I see as an overall downward trend in maintenance funding – with the negative impact falling more heavily on the Navy’s surface combatants than on carriers and submarines.”

Feb 12/11: LPD 23 launch. LPD 23 is launched into the Mississippi River. She is about 78% complete, and some new pre-launch installations include items like mechanical completion of the anchor windlass hydraulic system. US Navy.

Building LPD 23 Anchorage
(click to view full)

Dec 12/10: The Washington DC area Sun Gazette reports that LPD 24 Arlington is tentatively scheduled for christening on March 26/10, and is now expected to be commissioned into service as USS Arlington in “mid-2012” after trials.

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $43.7 million contract modification. It’s the 1st of 4 annual options associated with the contract referenced in the Feb 16/10 entry, which could grow to $249.4 million. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2011; but $109,947 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00024-10-C-2203). See also NGC release.

Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA received a $38 million contract modification. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (98%), and Norfolk, VA (2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011; but $1,134,760 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00024-10-C-2205).

Nov 23/10: LPD 24 launched. Northrop Grumman’s Pascagoula, MS shipyard launches Arlington [LPD 24]. The ship launches at 77% complete, and upgrades over previous ships-of-class include a new water purification system, and a new operating system for the ship’s computing environment. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding’s LPD 17 program manager, Doug Lounsberry, says that: “This ship was the most complete LPD to date at time of launch and the schedule was also the shortest time from keel laying to launch.” If that has resulted in lower build costs, however, the budgets don’t indicate it.

Arlington is named for the county in which the Pentagon is located, as a memorial to the heroes and victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The ship’s christening is tentatively scheduled for spring of 2011. US Navy | Northrop Grumman.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by March 2012. This contract was not competitively procured, since Raytheon is set as the contractor responsible for that aspect of the ships (N00024-11-C-2404).

Oct 29/10: USN Command Failure. Based on the Bloomberg report, the naval blog Information Dissemination looks at the DOT&E reports from 2006-2009, and matches them with command histories. The results are enlightening, and the op-ed point following those report excerpts is apt:

“There are clearly issues here that raise serious questions of specific industry companies as to why they have been unable to meet requirements. There are also serious questions for the Navy though, starting with why the recommendations made by DOT&E have gone ignored for several years in a row through at least December of 2009… LPD-17 class features networks with single points of failure that appear to be perpetually unreliable, new weapon systems that don’t meet requirements, and unreliable communication and information exchange equipment – all of which piles on top of the incredible number of HM&E problems identified as a result of poor construction and shipyard practices that have had most the class sidelined.

…Admiral Harvey took over Fleet Forces Command in July of 2009, and if you look over the CRS report by Ronald O’Rourke (PDF) that lists the history of construction problems from pages 17-45 (28 pages!), 10 of those pages disclose problems identified and reported over the 15 month time period since ADM Harvey took over responsibility at Fleet Forces Command… from June 2005 until July of 2009 – 49 months – very few of the major problems that are class-wide and often discussed today were apparently identified, or reported. Why did everyone have to wait for Admiral Harvey to assume command of Fleet Forces Command… Why was ADM Jonathan Greenert, who was in charge Fleet Forces Command from September 2007 to July 2009, unable to uncover any of these issues?

…As a reward for ADM Greenert’s apparent ignorance (or intentional concealment) regarding the depth of the LPD-17 class problems – he was promoted to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. I would also think there are plenty of questions for VADM Kevin McCoy who was the Chief Engineer in NAVSEA from 2005-2008 until he became commander of NAVSEA in June of 2008 – because all of the problems with LPD-17 took place while VADM McCoy was part of the leadership in NAVSEA over the last 5 years.

Problems with the LPD-17 class are similar to problems seen in other classes of ships built and maintained over the last several years, and these are problems that leadership at the time did not address and have gone on to cost the Navy billions to resolve. Noteworthy, as a reward for their work (and the problems listed in the Balisle Report is basically the resume of failure at Fleet Forces Command under ADM Greenert btw), the current CNO promoted these folks and the Senate approved those promotions… Screw up as a leader at sea – You’re Fired! Cost the country billions while leading ashore – You’re Promoted! That is my definition of a leadership culture that selectively applies accountability.”

Naval command failure

FY 2009 DOT&E report
(click to read)

Oct 28/10: Survivability, quality questioned by Pentagon. Bloomberg News reports on a classified report sent to Congress in June 2010, outlining Pentagon testing that found serious issues with the LPD-17 San Antonio Class’ ability to survive combat situations. Their report is based on an unclassified summary of that report, and an email response from Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation, who described the ships as “not effective, suitable and not survivable in a combat situation.” The core of those reports is that the ships continue to experience widespread, persistent engineering problems, and couldn’t continue to operate reliably after being hit by enemy fire, in part because of the engineering problems mentioned. From the Pentagon’s DOT&E FY 2009 Annual Report:

“Chronic reliability problems associated with critical ship systems across the spectrum of mission areas reduces overall ship suitability and jeopardizes mission accomplishment… Emerging results from [Navy] trials indicate the ships could not demonstrate the required levels of survivability, largely because of critical ship system failures after weapons effects.”

“…Reliability problems related to well deck ramps, ventilation, bridge crane, and Cargo Ammunition Magazine (CAM) elevators… [and] Engineering Control System (ECS), including frequent failures and high false alarm rates, and the electrical distribution system, including unexplained loss of service generators and the uncommanded opening of breakers… The Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) identified similar deficiencies in identical areas (propulsion, auxiliaries, electrical, damage control, deck) during both acceptance and final contract trials across all four of the first ships of the class. Catastrophic casualties recorded prior to the Full Ship Shock Trial in LPD-19 and during LPD-17’s deployment revealed serious fabrication and production deficiencies in the main lube oil service system. The ship is capable of supporting [C4I] requirements in an ESG environment; however, reliability problems with the SWAN(Shipborne Wide Area Network) and the Interior Voice Communications System degrade command and control and are single points of failure during operations.

The LPD-17 exhibited difficulty defending itself against several widely proliferated threats, primarily due to… Persistent SSDS Mk 2-based [DID: link added] system engineering deficiencies… The ship’s RAM system provided the only hard kill capability, preventing layered air defense [DID: in fairness, the ships were designed this way]… Problems associated with SPS-48E and SPQ-9B radar performance against certain Anti-Ship Cruise Missile attack profiles [DID: also a known design limitation]… Degraded situational awareness due to Mk 46 [30mm remotely-operated] Gun Weapon System console configuration… The survivability of the San Antonio class ships appear to be improved over the LPD class ships they will replace. However, problems encountered with critical systems during testing (particularly with the electrical distribution, chilled water, SWAN, and ECS) and difficulty recovering mission capability may offset some of the survivability improvements and have highlighted serious reliability shortcomings.”

Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor and SPQ-9 radar provider, while Raytheon provides some of the items mentioned above, such as the SSDS combat system, shipboard network, etc. ITT makes the SPS-48E radar. The report comes as various firms are considering buying all or part of Northrop Grumman’s shipbuilding business. Pentagon DOT&E FY 2009 [PDF] | Bloomberg | DoD Buzz | Reuters.

Testing troubles

Oct 20/10: LPD 27 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $62 million cost-plus-fixed-fee not-to-exceed contract modification, to buy long lead time materials for LPD 27. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by August 2014 (N00024-06-C-2222).

Oct 18/10: BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair in San Diego, CA receives an $11.1 million contract modification for the USS New Orleans’ [LPD 18] FY 2011 phased maintenance availability. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by March 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. The Us Navy’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages this contract.

Oct 15/10: LPD 19 switch-in. U.S. Fleet Force Command (USFF) Commander Adm. John C. Harvey Jr. announces that USS Mesa Verde [LPD 19] will replace USS San Antonio [LPD 17] in the USS Bataan’s [LHD 5] Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) in the summer of 2011. Mesa Verde, which was built in Mississippi instead of the San Antonio Class’ primary yard at Avondale near New Orleans, returned from a 7-month deployment to the Persian Gulf in August 2010, and wasn’t expected to deploy again until late 2012.

San Antonio is currently scheduled to conduct comprehensive crew certification and sea trials in early spring 2011, but Adm. Harvey would only say that: “San Antonio will deploy when it is operationally sound and ready to go.” The ship’s overhaul at Norfolk was expected to take about 4-5 months and cost $5 million, but bolts in the foundations of the diesel engines and the main reduction gears were improperly installed at the shipyard. That created vibrations in the drive train that could have completely destroyed the propulsion system over time, and repairs are now expected to take about 11 months and at least $39 million, possibly more. USFF | Defense News.

Oct 3/10: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding loads 100,000 gallons of fuel aboard the San Diego [LPD 22]. That step requires that all of the machinery spaces are prepared and ready, and helps flush the fuel system ahead of the upcoming generator light off in November 2010.

San Diego was christened in June 2010, and is scheduled for sea trials in Q2 2011. NGC.

FY 2010

Flawed construction. Avondale shipyard closed.

LPD-17: Welcome to Norfolk…
(click to view full)

July 29/10: Flaws. Gannett’s Navy Times reports on testimony before the House Armed Service Committee’s readiness panel, indicating unique problems with USS Green Bay’s [LPD 20] steering system. That’s in addition to other problems generic to the class involving metal shavings polluting the lube oil systems and damaging the engines.

Like her sister ships San Antonio, New Orleans, and New York, all of which have experienced major post-delivery problems on top of their cost overruns, USS Green Bay was also built at the Avondale shipyard near New Orleans. Read “LPD-17 Reliability Issues Surface Again” for more.

July 13/10: Closing Avondale. Northrop Grumman Corporation announces plans to consolidate its Gulf Coast shipbuilding operations in Pascagoula, MS, and try to sell its entire shipbuilding business. Its Avondale, LA shipyard will close by 2013, transferring all LPD-related work. With the hysteria surrounding Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath a thing of the past, and a new emphasis on financial performance in the firm’s boardroom, these moves become politically possible at both the corporate and national levels.

“The consolidation of Gulf Coast ship construction is the next step in the company’s efforts to improve performance and efficiency at its Gulf Coast shipyards… Since [early 2008] Gulf Coast organization and leadership, operating systems, program execution, risk management, engineering, and quality have been the focus of intense improvement efforts. Consolidating new ship construction on the Gulf Coast in one shipyard will position Shipbuilding to achieve additional performance improvement and efficiency over the long term. Ship construction at Avondale will wind down in 2013. Future LPD-class ships will be built in a single production line at the company’s Pascagoula, Miss. facility. The company anticipates some opportunities in Pascagoula for Avondale shipbuilders who wish to relocate.

…the company expects higher costs to complete ships currently under construction in Avondale due to anticipated reductions in productivity and, as a result, is increasing the estimates to complete LPDs 23 and 25 by approximately $210 million. Of this amount $113 million will be recognized as a one-time, pre-tax cumulative charge to Shipbuilding’s second quarter 2010 operating income. The balance will be recognized as lower margin in future periods, principally on the LPD 25. The company also anticipates that it will incur substantial restructuring and facilities shutdown-related costs including, but not limited to, severance, relocation expense, and asset write-downs. These costs are expected to be allowable expenses under government accounting standards and recoverable in future years under the company’s contracts. The company estimates that these restructuring costs will be more than offset by future savings expected to be generated by the consolidation.”

Closing Avondale, LA shipyard

June 30/10: Flaws.Gannett’s Navy Times offers excerpts from a US Navy report, which indicated continued problems with basic workmanship aboard the Navy’s billion-dollar San Antonio Class ships:

“Inadequate government oversight during the construction process failed to prevent or identify as a problem the lack of cleanliness and quality assurance that resulted in contamination of closed systems,” said the Navy report, [dated May 20th but] released Thursday. “Material challenges with this ship and other ships of the class continue to negatively impact fleet operations. Failures in the acquisition process, maintenance, training and execution of shipboard programs all share in the responsibility for these engineering casualties… [With its automated systems] not functioning as designed, the ship was unable to effectively operate and maintain the engineering plant.”

The problems reported in January 2010 were traced to contaminated lube oil systems that were damaging their main engines, and USS San Antonio [LPD-17] and USS New York [LPD 21] remain affected, with San Antonio expected to be in dry dock until late 2010 as engineers attempt to repair a bent crankshaft.

June 2/10: General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. in Woodbridge, VA receives a $22.3 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed fee contract for the MK46 MOD 2 gun weapon systems (GWS) and associated hardware, spares and services. There are several Mk46s in the US Navy, but this one is a 30mm enclosed turret packing a Mk44 Bushmaster chain gun and advanced sights. The turret is operated from a console inside the LPD-17 San Antonio Class amphibious ships, and the Littoral Combat Ship’s surface warfare package. This contract covers both naval platforms.

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (69%); Tallahassee, FL (12%); Lima, OH (12%); Westminster, MD (4%); Scranton, PA (2%); and Sterling Heights, MI (1%). Work is expected to be complete by May 2013. $812,412 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command, in Washington, DC (N00024-10-C-5438).

April 30/10: LPD 26 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives an $184 million cost plus fixed-fee advance procurement contract modification that will provide long lead materials for LPD 26. Equipment bought under this contract includes main engines and diesel generators and other equipment including electrical switchboards, deck equipment and fire extinguishing systems, and the contract is expected to be complete by August 2012 (N00024-06-C-2222). Northrop Grumman release.

This is the second advance procurement contract for LPD 26, totaling $397.8 million; see also June 23/09.

April 14/10: USS John P. Murtha?!? The Navy announces the proposed name for LPD 26. Gannett’s Navy Times:

“Navy Secretary Ray Mabus notified Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead that he had selected “John P. Murtha” for the previously unnamed LPD 26. It’s the latest example of the Navy breaking a convention for naming its warships; the previous ships in the San Antonio class have been named for American cities.

Capt. Beci Brenton, a spokeswoman for Mabus, who is traveling on the West Coast, said she had no comment on the memo… [which] appeared to reflect both [Murtha’s] support in Congress for more of the gators and his service in the Marine Corps… But Murtha might also prove to be a controversial pick: He was accused of ethics violations several times over the course of his career and he caused outrage among Marines in 2005 when he accused troops of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, of “killing innocent people” in a shooting in Haditha, Iraq.”

As of April 14/10, 6 of the Marine defendants had their cases dropped, 1 was found not guilty, and SSgt. Wuterich, the last defendant, is scheduled to stand trial Sept 13/10.

April 13/10: BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair in Norfolk, VA won a $29.6 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for post shakedown availability of LPD 21, the USS New York. PSAs fix last-minute issues that are found on the initial shakedown cruise, after a ship’s commissioning. BAE will perform program management, planning, engineering, design, liaison, scheduling, labor, and procurement of incidental material required.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA (91%), and Chesapeake, VA (9%), and is expected to be complete by July 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $5,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities Web site, with 4 proposals received (N00024-10-C-2204).

“Program costs increased $4,417.5 million (+31.0%) from $14,241.7 million to $18,659.2 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of two ships from 9 to 11 ships (+$2,075.5 million) and associated schedule, estimating, and other allocations[1] (+$1,291.7 million), and additional full funding and outfitting and post delivery increases associated with the quantity increase (+$484.2 million). Costs also increased due to the addition of cost to complete funding for ships 22 through 25 (+$239.0 million), Hurricane Katrina supplemental funding for ships 20 through 24 (+$192.7 million), and special transfer authority and outfitting and post delivery requirements for ships 21 through 25 (+$132.0 million).”

More ships

Feb 16/10: Northrop Grumman announces that it received a $41.3 million cost-plus-fixed fee contract for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program. If all options are exercised, the contract has a potential value of $249.4 million.

Under the contract (N00024-10-C-2203), Northrop Grumman will provide the following services: post-delivery planning and engineering, systems integration and engineering support, research engineering, material support, fleet modernization program planning, supply chain management, maintenance and training for certain LPD 17-class shipboard systems. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2010. This is a follow-on contract to one awarded in 2005 (see Feb 11/05 entry), and beyond this year, there are 4 more option years that could increase its total value.

“Inspectors are rechecking every pipe weld aboard every ship built in the last several years at Avondale, La., or Pascagoula, Miss., including destroyers and small- and big-deck amphibs, after discovering so many problems that all pipe welders and Navy inspectors at both yards had to be decertified and then recertified to work on ships… The disbarring and reapplication took place last summer, when some of the problems were first discovered… A major question was how or why NavSea’s inspectors approved work that subsequent Navy inspections later found inadequate… Inspectors are looking at the entire San Antonio class of amphibious transport docks to determine what has caused systemic lube-oil problems in multiple ships, as well as damage to engine bearings that recently sidelined the newest ship, New York.”

Most LPD-17 class ships have been built at Avondale, near New Orleans, LA – a shipyard that has has demonstrated extensive workmanship problems throughout the program. USS Mesa Verde [LPD 19], which was built at Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, is currently at sea, inspected, and will continue its mission to Haiti and the Middle East. USS New York [LPD 21] is dealing with lube oil and engine problems, and a bowed crankshaft that will need to be replaced in an unprecedented procedure. Northrop will pay for work on USS New York, which is still under warranty. Any problems found in other ships will be subject to negotiation.

Flawed construction

Jan 8/10: Major breakdown. The US Navy announces that a week long, at-sea examination following USS New York’s commissioning has discovered the “premature failure” of bearings associated with the ship’s Colt-Pielstick main propulsion diesel engines. After the damage was found, the ship returned to Naval Station Norfolk under its own power.

The USS New York was built in Northrop Grumman’s Avondale shipyard in Louisiana near New Orleans, as opposed to the Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. The failed components are under warranty, and will be repaired. It’s currently unclear how long the repairs will take, however, how serious the failures are, or whether the problems affect other ships in the San Antonio class. Virginia-Pilot | Hampton Roads WTKR.

Nov 7/09: LPD 21 commissioned. The US Navy commissions LPD 21 as USS New York, at a ceremony in New York City. The ship arrived in New York on Oct 2/09 and hosted Mayor Bloomberg for the sail-in, after leaving its homeport of Naval Station Norfolk, VA on Oct 29/09. It contains over 7 tons of steel salvaged from the destroyed World Trade Center. US Navy on NYC arrival | US Navy on commissioning.

USS New York

Nov 2/09: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in San Diego, CA receives an $8.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee sole-source contract covering life cycle engineering and support (LCE&S) services for LPD 17 Class integrated shipboard electronic systems. This contract includes options which could bring the cumulative value of this contract to $197.1 million.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (95%); Chula Vista, CA (3%); and Norfolk, VA (2%), and the base period is expected to be complete by December 2009 (N00024-10-C-2205).

FY 2009

LPD 17 repairs. LPD 21.

LPD-21, sea trials
(click to read)

July 23/09: LPD 21 passes INSURV. LPD 21 New York returns to its Avondale shipyard in New Orleans July 23 flying 3 brooms, signifying a successful sweep of its U.S. Navy Acceptance Trials. The ship demonstrated a variety of systems including main propulsion including a full power run, engineering and ship control systems, combat systems including self defense detect-to-engage exercises, damage control, food service and crew support. During the tests, its ballast system for flooding the ship’s well deck test setting a new LPD ship record for time to ballast down. Northrop Grumman release.

July 2/09: Northrop Grumman Corporation announces that the New York [LPD 21] successfully accomplished its builder’s sea trials this week in the Gulf of Mexico.

LPD 21 is under construction at the company’s Avondale facility in Louisiana. The ship is especially notable for the fact that its bow stem contains 7.5 tons of steel recovered from the World Trade Center following the terrorist attacks of Sept 11/01. NGC release | NGC video.

June 23/09: LPD 26 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $213.8 million contract modification for long lead time materials (LLTM) in support of LPD 26, the 10th San Antonio class ship. The award covers early procurement or manufacture, inspection, test, storage and maintenance of these items, which include main engines and diesel generators. A contract for the detail design and construction of LPD 26 is anticipated in mid-2010. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS and is expected to be complete by December 2013.

See also Dec 19/08 entry, and the accompanying NGC release for this contract. The total cost of announced LPD 26 long-lead materials contracts so far is $223.8 million.

April 14/09: BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair in San Diego, CA received a $24.7 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-2200) for LPD 20 Green Bay’s post shakedown availability tasks, and acceleration of fleet required ship alterations. Work will include:

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be completed by Jan. 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

April 6/09: LPD 27 postponed. US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announces his FY 2010 budget recommendations. They include postponement of LPD 27 funding to build the 11th ship of class.

March 20/09: LPD 18 collision. A collision between the USS Hartford [SSN 768] and the USS New Orleans [LPD-18] in the Strait of Hormuz, slightly injures 15 sailors. Both vessels are able to proceed under their own power after the incident, although the New Orleans suffered a ruptured fuel tank, releasing 25,000 gallons of diesel fuel into the strait. US Navy | US Navy repairs photo.

Dec 19/08: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS received a $10 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to a previously awarded contract, in order to buy long lead-time materials for LPD 26. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, and is expected to be complete by December 2010 (N00024-06-C-2222).

Dec 4/08: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in New Orleans, LA received a $16.8 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217) for Life Cycle Engineering and Support services on the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (60%) and New Orleans, LA (40%); the contract period will end the end of the fiscal year on Sept 30/09, but contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Oct 31/08: Major breakdown. The USS San Antonio [LPD 17] is forced into to a Bahraini shipyard for at least 2 weeks of repairs. On Oct 9th and 17th, leaks were discovered in the pipes that deliver lubricating oil to the ship’s 4 diesel engines. The fault is classified as hazardous, because the leaks drip flammable oil into open spaces. When the ship pulled in, it was greeted by a large team of 30-40 engineers, pipefitters and welders flown to Bahrain from the U.S.

It is rare to find such serious faults in a new ship. Many analysts, including former 3-star rear admiral Rep. Joe Sestak [D-PA], see the problems as further evidence of systemic workmanship flaws.

Oct 22/08: Raytheon announces that the U.S. Navy has exercised the 3rd of 3 one-year options, paying Raytheon up to $23 million for San Antonio Class life cycle engineering and support. The original contract was issued in 2005.

Raytheon’s work on the LPD 17 program is performed at the Expeditionary Warfare Center in San Diego, CA; the Seapower Capability Center in Portsmouth, RI; and by Raytheon Technical Services Company in New Orleans, LA and San Diego, CA. Raytheon release.

FY 2007 – 2008

Initial Operating Capability. First deployment. LPD 18 to 20.

LPD-22 construction
(click to view full)

Aug 28/08: A mission, at last. The USS San Antonio [LPD 17] becomes the first ship of class to deploy on a mission, over 2 1/2 years after the ship was commissioned into service.

During the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) Acceptance Trials, LPD 20 successfully demonstrated a variety of systems including main propulsion, engineering and ship control systems including the Shipboard Wide Area Network, combat systems, damage control, food service and crew support. Among the highlights of the trial, Green Bay successfully completed a full power run, self-defense detect-to-engage exercises, ballasting, deballasting, and steering and anchor handling demonstrations. US Navy | Raytheon.

May 8/08:Raytheon announces a $32 million contract to develop and integrate the total ship electronics systems for LPD 25, the 9th ship of the U.S. Navy’s LPD 17 class. Under the contract, awarded by Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Raytheon continues its role as the total ship electronics systems integrator for all ships of this class. Raytheon IDS will provide the Shipboard Wide Area Network, integrated product data environment, total ship information management, and integrated ship electronics architecture.

May 5/08: IOC for LPD-17s.MarineLink reports that The LPD 17 class has reached Initial Operating Capability. The USS San Antonio is reportedly on track to deploy with the USS Iwo Jima [LHD 7] Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) later in 2008.

IOC

March 1/08: LPD 21 launch. The US Navy christens and launches LPD 21 New York at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding in New Orleans, LA. The ship is named New York in honor of the state, the city and the victims of Sept 11/01. A unique characteristic of the ship is the use of 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center wreckage that was incorporated into the construction process. The steel was melted and formed to make the bow stem of the ship. US Navy | DefenseLINK.

Coupled with the advance procurement contract funded for LPD 25 (q.v. Nov 6/06 entry) total contracts for the ship to date are valued at more than $1.2 billion. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (85%) and Pascagoula, MS (15%), and is expected to be complete by November 2011. NGC release.

LPD 25 main order

Dec 15/07: LPD 19 commissioned. LPD-19 is commissioned as the USS Mesa Verde. She will ultimately join the fleet in its home port of Norfolk, VA.

LPD 19 is named for the Mesa Verde National park in Southwestern Colorado. Congress established Mesa Verde, meaning “green plateau,” as the first cultural park in the national parks system in 1906 to preserve the notable cliff dwellings of the ancestral Pueblo culture dating back 13 centuries ago. Northrop Grumman release | US Navy release.

USS Mesa Verde

Dec 15/07: The crew of the USS New Orleans [LPD 18] executes the ship class’ first amphibious launch and recovery of the USMC’s new expeditionary fighting vehicle (EFV). US Navy release.

Nov 26-30/07: LPD 17 passes INSURV. An INSURV (Board of Inspection and Survey) underway material inspection examines San Antonio for the 3rd time, and finds her fit for sustained combat service in the Fleet. US Navy | MarineLink.

Mesa Verde, trials
(click to view full)

Sept 28/07: Raytheon Co. in San Diego, CA received a $27.1 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-2207) to exercise an option for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on select electronic systems for the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by September 2008. Raytheon release.

Sept 28/07: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in New Orleans, LA received a $13 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217) to exercise an option for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on the LPD 17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program.

Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (60%) and New Orleans, LA (40%), and is expected to be complete by September 2008.

Sept 20/07: LPD 19 passes INSURV. Northrop Grumman announces that its 3rd San Antonio Class ship, the Mesa Verde [LPD 19], has successfully completed its acceptance trials for the U.S. Navy. The ship will be delivered later in September 2007, and is scheduled to be commissioned as USS Mesa Verde in Panama City, Fla. on Dec 15/07. Northrop Grumman gave no further specifics, noting only that “the ship performed well”; U.S. Navy Cmdr. Shawn Lobree, LPD 19’s prospective commanding officer, said that the ship “passed all major testing events.” Northrop Grumman release.

Aug 13-16/07: LPD 19. Mesa Verde [LPD 19] successfully completes builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico, in a collaborative effort involving the U.S. Navy and Northrop Grumman. The ship’s compartments were 100% complete, and all systems and certifications were completed and tested 100% to pre-trial requirements. Testing was performed on the ship’s main propulsion, communications, steering, navigational, radar and other systems. Other exercises included anchor handling, flight operations, compartment air balancing, and ballasting/de-ballasting of the well deck that launches amphibious landing craft.

Note that unlike her predecessors, Mesa Verde was built at the Pascagoula, MS shipyard, rather than at Avondale near New Orleans. Next month, the U.S. Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) team will conduct acceptance trials aboard LPD 19, which will involve more rounds of extensive testing of the ship’s major systems. Northrop Grumman release.

“Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter criticized shipbuilder Northrop Grumman Ship Systems for substandard work and, in a letter last week, questioned the future of amphibious and destroyer ship programs under contract with the company. “By taking delivery of incomplete ships with serious quality problems, the Fleet has suffered unacceptable delays in obtaining deployable assets,” Winter wrote to Ronald Sugar, Northrop Grumman’s chief executive officer.

Two years after accepting the San Antonio, “the Navy still does not have a mission capable LPD ship,” Winter wrote… In March 2006, chief of naval operations Adm. Mike Mullen also attacked Northrop Grumman over its work quality. The average cost per ship has risen 50 percent over original estimates, according to the Navy… The worst problems were in the propulsion, auxiliary and aviation systems. Nearly two-thirds of those serious problems were discovered during an earlier inspection, reported as fixed, but still existed during the later check.

The second ship in the amphibious class, the New Orleans, has fewer problems but was still incomplete when accepted by the Navy, Winter wrote to Northrop Grumman. The company’s “inefficiency and mismanagement of LPD 17 put the Navy in an untenable position,” according to Winter.

He has assigned a deputy to perform quarterly reviews on the shipyard and all ships under contract with Northrop Grumman.”

April 14/07: Flaws. The Virginia Pilot reports that LPD-17 continues to have reliability and workmanship issues, with major failings in 3/17 tests and no ability to be sea-tested during a five-day inspection period because one of its two steering systems completely failed. See The Virginia Pilot report | full DID coverage, incl. June 30 follow-up.

Flawed construction

April 9/07: SAR Increases. The Pentagon releases its April 2007 Selected Acquisition Report, and the LPD-17 Class is one of the systems covered. Program costs increased by $1,107.4 million (+8.9%) from $12,486.6 million to $13,594.0 million, due primarily to the addition of Hurricane Katrina Supplemental funding (+$1,155.4 million).

Cost jump

LPD 18 New Orleans
(click to view full)

March 10/07: LPD 18 commissioned. USS New Orleans is commissioned at a ceremony in New Orleans. The ship’s sponsor is Carolyn Shelton, wife of Gen. Henry H. Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. See USN release | Northrop Grumman release. As of December 2007, the ship has yet to be assigned to an operational mission.

USS New Orleans

Feb 27/07: BAE Systems in San Diego, CA received an $11.3 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for accomplishment of the Fitting-Out Availability (FOA) for the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship New Orleans [LPD 18]. The contract includes performance of specified work items inclusive of tests and post repair sea trials. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by July 2007; contract funds in the amount of $1.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was competitively procured and posted on Federal Business Opportunities website, with 3 offers received (N00024-07-C-2200).

In addition to ship production, this effort will include procurement of long lead material and also inspection, testing, storing and maintaining the long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. The contractor will also provide management efforts, including subcontract and risk management. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (90%) and New Orleans, LA (10%), and is expected to be complete by March 2011. See also Northrop Grumman’s press release.

LPD 24 main order

Dec 22/06: LPD 18 delivery. Northrop Grumman representatives and Navy officials signed documents officially transferring custody of the LPD 18 New Orleans at the company’s New Orleans facility. The ship is scheduled to be commissioned in March 2007. See Northrop Grumman release.

FY 2005 – 2006

LPD 17 commissioned.

LPD-17 commissioning
(click for full size)

Sept 29/06: Raytheon Co. in San Diego, CA received a $26.7 million cost-plus award fee modification under previously awarded contract N00024-06-C-2207, exercising an option for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on select electronic systems for the LPD-17 Class as ships are delivered and commissioned. Under this contract, Raytheon will establish integrated support services for sustainment of the complete shipboard mission systems suite that the company delivers to this class of ships. Raytheon is the prime contractor for life cycle engineering and support for electronic systems on the LPD-17 Class; see this article’s June 27/06 contract entry. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by September 2007. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., issued the contract. See Raytheon’s October 18 press release.

Sept 29/06: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, New Orleans, LA received a $13.3 million cost-plus award fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217) to exercise an option for continued Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on the LPD-17 Class. Services include: post delivery planning and engineering, homeport technical support, Class Integrated Product Data Environment (IPDE), data maintenance and equipment management, systems integration and engineering support, research engineering, obsolescence management, material readiness team operations, emergent repair provisions (including warranty enforcement), training and logistics support. Support services include: Fleet Modernization Program planning, ship alteration development and installation, material management, operating cycle integration, availability planning, configuration data management, research engineering, logistics documentation, and other logistics and executing activity coordination, and management of all related data within the Class IPDE. LPD 17 Class Engineering: engineering, logistics, and technical studies of shipbuilding requirements and design change development. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be complete by September 2007. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract.

June 27/06: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems is subcontracted by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems to provide the electronic systems and integration for the next 3 ships in the LPD-17 class: USS San Diego [LPD 22], USS Anchorage, and USS Arlington [LPD 24]. Work also includes the shipboard wide area network, voice and video systems, et. al. The $218 million subcontract extends Raytheon’s role as the ship electronic systems integrator for the class. See Raytheon release.

June 1/06: LPD 22 & 23 ordered. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received $2.49 billion fixed-price incentive contract for construction of two LPD-17 Class amphibious transport dock ships (LPD 22 San Diego and LPD 23 Anchorage), with long lead time materials and associated labor for a third (LPD 24 Arlington). In addition to ship production, this effort will include procurement of long lead material and also inspection, testing, storing and maintaining long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. In addition, the contractor will provide the management efforts including subcontract and risk management. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS and New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be complete by October 2011 (N00024-06-C-2222). See also N-G corporate release, also Navy PEO ships release.

LPD 22 & 23 main orders

Jan 27/06: Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corp. in Norfolk, VA received a $6.8 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2224) to exercise an option for the Post-Shakedown Availability (PSA) of the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship USS San Antonio [LPD 17]. The contract is for services and material for total fitting-out availability (FOA) and PSA efforts for LPD 17. Specific efforts include: engineering and management, labor and procurement of material to correct government responsible deficiencies and accomplish system upgrades; perform specified FOA/PSA work items inclusive of tests and post repair sea trials; task additional man-hours and material in order to complete emergent repairs. Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA and is expected to be complete by April 2007.

Jan 11/06: LPD 17 commissioned. The ship becomes USS San Antonio.

USS San Antonio

Nov 1/05: Raytheon Co. in San Diego, CA received a $19.2 million cost-plus award fee contract for Life Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services on select electronic systems for the LPD-17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program. Work will be performed at San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by September 2006. Contract funds in the amount of $250,000, will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C. issued the contract. (N00024-06-C-2207)

Oct 18/05: LPD 22 & 23 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $50.7 million modification to previously awarded contract N00024-01-C-2224. It covers additional long lead-time materials in support of two Amphibious Transport Dock Ships, LPD 22 San Diego and LPD 23 Anchorage. The contractor will procure long lead material necessary to prepare for construction of LPD 22 and LPD 23. The effort will include not only procurement but also inspection, testing, storing and maintaining long-lead material. Contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. Limited advance construction activities for LPD 22 San Diego are also included. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (88%) and Pascagoula, MS (12%), and is expected to be complete by January 2010.

Sept 30/05: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $22.4 million cost-plus-award-fee modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2217). It exercises an option for life cycle engineering and support services on the LPD-17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (80%) and San Diego, CA (20%), and is expected to be complete by September 2006.

Aug 30/05: Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., Norfolk, VA, received a $5.2 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for the Fitting-Out Availability (FOA) of the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship LPD 17 San Antonio. The contract will provide services and material for the total FOA and Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) efforts for LPD 17. Specific efforts include: engineering and management in support of the FOA/PSA; labor and procurement of material to correct government responsible deficiencies and accomplish system upgrades; performance of specified FOA/PSA work items, including tests and post repair sea trials; task additional manhours and material to complete emergent repairs. Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA, and is expected to be complete by February 2006. This contract was competitively procured and advertised via the Internet, with three proposals received (N00024-05-C-2224).

April 19/05: Raytheon Co. Integrated Defense Systems’ (Raytheon IDS) role as a mission systems integrator for the LPD-17 San Antonio Class of amphibious warfare ships took another step forward, thanks to a $12.5 million subcontract from lead integrator Northrop-Grumman. Raytheon IDS will “provide performance-based logistics and establish integrated support services for sustainment of the complete shipboard mission systems suite” that the company delivers to this class of ships. Raytheon is also creating battle management systems for the Navy’s new DD (X) destroyer and CVN-21 future aircraft carriers. This will provide all three classes of vessel with a common system, improving coordination among different types of ships in the U.S. fleet. See DID coverage.

Feb 11/05: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $26.9 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for LPD-17 Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program Life-Cycle Engineering and Support (LCE&S) services. The LPD 17-class life-cycle engineering and support contract, worth $26.9 million, combines the expertise of shipbuilder Northrop Grumman and electronic-systems integrator Raytheon to manage critical life-cycle cost/performance ship-class drivers such as technology upgrades, software support and ship-systems integration by managing ship-class hardware and software as a single entity.

Services will include: post delivery planning and engineering, homeport technical support, Class Integrated Product Data Environment, data maintenance and equipment management, systems integration and engineering support, research engineering, obsolescence management, material readiness team operations, emergent repair provisions, and training and logistics support. Work will be performed at Pascagoula, MS (58%) and New Orleans, LA (42%), and is expected to be complete by September 2005. This contract was not competitively awarded (N00024-05-C-2217). See corporate release.

Dec 23/04: LPD 22 & 23 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $165.1 million maximum-priced modification to existing letter contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for to procure additional long lead-time materials necessary to prepare for construction of two Amphibious Transport Dock Ships, LPD 22 San Diego and LPD 23 Anchorage. The effort will include inspection, testing, storing and maintaining long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. In addition, contractor will provide subcontracting and risk management. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be complete by December 2008.

Dec 11/04: LPD 18 launched. New Orleans [LPD 18] launched. Note that this does not mean the ship is finished, and indeed the ship was not yet ready to leave the New Orleans yard when Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast in 2005.

FY 2004 and Earlier

First orders.

From WTC to LPD-21
(click to view full)

Sept 10/04: LPD 21 keel. Keel-laying ceremony for the New York [LPD 21]. The ship will include steel in the bow section cast from salvaged portions of the World Trade Center in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Aug 17/04: LPD 23 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $107,121,910 letter-contract modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for additional long lead time materials necessary to support build preparation for the Amphibious Transport Dock Ship LPD 23 Anchorage. The effort shall include not only procurement but also inspection, testing, storing and maintaining the long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance, and will provide the management efforts including subcontract and risk management. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to complete by December 2008.

May 26/04: LPD 22 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $100,414,220 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for long lead material and associated effort for LPD 22 San Diego. Work will be performed in Avondale, LA, and is expected to be complete by October 2008.

Nov 25/03: LPD 21 ordered. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received an $816.6 million cost-plus-incentive/award-fee contract for the detailed design and construction of the LPD 21 New York. Included under this effort are provisioning spares, design engineering services, research and development for future product improvement and the creation of a sustained engineering environment for the ship wide area network.

LPD 21 will become USS New York, and steel from the destroyed World Trade Center has been saved for its construction. It will be melted down, and included in her bow.

Work will be performed in Avondale, LA (87%); Pascagoula, MS (12%); and Gulfport, MS (1%), and is expected to be complete by August 2007. The contract was not competitively procured (N00024-04-C-2204).

LPD 21 main order

Aug 11/03: Keel-laying ceremony for the Green Bay [LPD 20]

Feb 25/03: Keel-laying ceremony for the Mesa Verde [LPD 19].

Oct 14/02: Keel-laying ceremony for the New Orleans [LPD 18].

July 30/02: LPD 21 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $171.05 million modification to previously awarded letter contract (N00024-01-C-2224) for long-lead time materials for the New York [LPD 21]. Work will be performed in Avondale, LA and is to be complete by February 2003.

March 28/01: Litton Avondale Industries, Inc., Shipyards Division, New Orleans, LA, received an $11.3 million modification to previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00024-97-C-2202) for 159,065 man-hours of engineering services in support of the LPD 17 Program. The contractor will provide product engineering, logistical analysis, and technical studies to support the LPD-17 Class ships. Services will be provided to support the integrated product data environment, engineering change analysis, life cycle support planning, and total ownership cost reduction efforts. This contract contains four options, which if exercised, will bring the total cumulative value of this contract to $41.6 million. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be complete by March 2005.

July 19/01: LPD 21 & 22 long-lead. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Avondale Operations in New Orleans, LA received a $113.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for advance procurement long lead time material in support of amphibious transport ships New York [LPD 21] and San Diego [LPD 22]. The effort shall include procurement, inspection, testing, storing and maintaining long lead material. The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface and material quality assurance. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (50%), and Bath, ME (50%), and is expected to be complete in October 2002. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-01-C-2224).

LPD-17 construction.
(click to view full)

May 30/00: LPD 20 ordered. Litton-Avondale Industries, Inc. in New Orleans, LA, received a $477.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee option for the construction of the Green Bay [LPD 20], the fourth LPD-17 Class amphibious transport dock ship. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA (83%); San Diego, CA (12.2%); Waynesboro, VA (4.6%); and Bath, ME (.2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2004. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-97-C-2202).

LPD 20 main order

Feb 15/00: LPD 19 ordered. Avondale Industries, Inc. in New Orleans, LA received a $491.9 million cost-plus-incentive fee option to previously awarded contract N00024-97-C-2202 to exercise an option for the construction of the LPD 19 Mesa Verde. Work will be performed in Bath, ME (85%); San Diego, CA (9%); Waynesboro, VA (4%) and places yet to be determined (2%), and is expected to be complete by March 2005.

LPD 19 main order

April 28/99: AlliedSignal Technical Services Corp., Columbia, Md., received an estimated $5.9 million indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, delivery order contract to provide systems engineering and integration support services including design, development, integration, installation, test and evaluation, certification, maintenance, modification and logistics support on a wide variety of electronic equipment, systems, and subsystems. These systems are communication systems installed on LPD 17 San Antonio, CVN 76 Ronald Reagan, and TADC (X) & JCC (X) class ships. Work will be performed in Charleston, SC and is expected to be complete by April 2000. The contract contains options, which, if exercised, will bring the cumulative value of the contract to $30 million. This contract was competitively procured with 107 proposals solicited and 3 offers received by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Charleston in Charleston, SC (N65236-99-D-3813).

Dec 18/98: LPD 18 ordered. Avondale Industries, Inc. in New Orleans, LA received a $312.8 million modification to previously awarded contract, exercising an option for the construction of the LPD 18 New Orleans. Given the ship’s total cost this is just an initial payment, on top of previous orders for long lead-time, early construction items like engines etc.

Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA and is expected to be complete by February 2004. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00024-97-C-2202).

LPD 18 main order

Dec 4/98: Raytheon Systems Co., Naval and Maritime Systems Div. in San Diego, CA received a $22.5 million cost-plus-award-fee letter contract for three ship self-defense systems (SSDS) for MK 2 equipment shipsets in support of CVN 76 Ronald Reagan, LPD 17 San Antonio, and LPD 18 New Orleans. The SSDS implements an evolutionary development of improved ship self-defense capabilities against high-speed, low-flying, anti-ship cruise missiles for selected non-AEGIS ships including the US Navy’s new Nimitz Class carriers (CVN 76 USS Ronald Reagan and CVN 77 USS George H.W. Bush). SSDS will be an integration of all the ship’s self-defence systems including sensors, weapons, radars and electronic warfare, data links, the ship’s Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) with the rest of the fleet, and the Shipboard Wide Area Network (SWAN) which is a fiber-optic ship wide area computer network including both classified and unclassified components.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (90%), and Portsmouth, RI (10%), and is expected to be complete in February 2000. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00024-99-C-5108).

Aug 4/98: Avondale Industries, Inc. in New Orleans, LA received a $9.7 million modification to previously awarded contract for research, development, test and evaluation of new technologies potentially applicable to the LPD-17 Class ship. This modification will cover the exploration of various emerging innovative production processes, shipboard automation techniques, and system design concepts with emphasis on reducing maintenance, manning, and radar cross section and improving structural design concepts, electronics integration and habitability.

Work will be performed in Bath, Maine (38%), San Diego, CA (32%), and New Orleans, LA (30%), and is expected to be complete in July 1999. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00024-97-C-2202).

Oct 2/97: TRW, Information Services Div. (ISD), Fairfax, VA received a $11.6 million modification to a previously awarded contract N00024-91-C-6456 to provide for technical and management services to support PMS 377, Amphibious Warfare Program Office and PMS 317 LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Docking Ship Program Office. This contract contains options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $24.8 million.

Work will be performed in Fairfax, VA (62%); Arlington, VA (22%); Alexandria, VA (5.5%); Chantilly, VA (4%); McLean, VA (3.5%); Severna Park, Md. (2%); and Fredricksburg, VA (1%), and is expected to be complete March 1998. This modification combines purchases for the US Navy (99%), and the Government of Japan (1%) under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract.

Dec 17/96: LPD 17 ordered. Avondale Industries, Incorporated in Avondale, LA received a $641.4 million cost-plus-award-fee contract for detail design, integration and construction of the LPD 17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship, with options for construction of LPD 18 and LPD 19. Teaming with Avondale on this contract are General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works, Hughes Aircraft Company, and Intergraph Corporation. Bath Iron Works will participate in the detail design and will construct the LPD 19. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of the entire contract to $1,526,134,594. It actually ends up costing more than that for just the 1st ship.

Work will be performed in Avondale, LA (48%); Bath, Maine (32%); Fullerton, CA (16%); and Waynesboro, VA (4%). The expected delivery of LPD 17 is 67 months after contract award (June/July 2001). This contract was competitively procured with full and open competition and two offers were received. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00024-97-C-2202).

HII – LPD Flight II. A stripped-down version that aims to cost less, and serve as a common base platform for everything from LSD amphibious ship replacement, to a hospital ship, to ballistic missile defense.

News and Views

CDR Salamander’s LPD-17 archive. A naval milblogger has been tracking the LPD-17 program for a couple of years. Archive includes INSURV reports from public sources and even back-channel sources. Not a professional industry publication, but interesting in its own way and has some informative material.

The US military calls them Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC). They’re high-speed, fully amphibious hovercraft capable of carrying a 60-ton payload (75 tons in overload) over water and land at speeds in excess of 40 knots and a nominal range of up to 200 nautical miles. Carrying equipment, troops, and/or supplies, the LCAC launches from inside the well deck of an amphibious warship, then travels the waves at high speed, runs right through the surf zone near the beach, and stops at a suitable place on land. Its cargo walks or rolls off. The LCAC returns to the surf to pick up more. Rinse. Agitate. Repeat.

LCAC, ashore
(click to view full)

A total of 91 LCACs were built between 1984-2001, and their design itself dates back to the 1970s. They require regular maintenance, refurbishment, upgrades, and even life extension programs to keep them operational into the future. This free-to-view Spotlight article will covers the program from 2005 forward, tracking contracts and key events.

The LCAC Program and its SLEPpers

LCAC into LPD-9
(click to enlarge)

Many militaries rely on slower and less expensive LCM (Landing Craft, Mechanized) boats, LCUs, and related small landing craft. By using hovercraft, however, the US military gives itself additional options for traversing difficult terrain like marshes, broadens its potential landing zones, and buys fast ferry services that can build up a landing zone more quickly. These same traits make LCACs extremely well-suited to humanitarian missions, as shown after the South Asian tsunami and in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Contracts for 91 LCACs were approved through FY 1997, with 91 craft delivered to the Fleet by the end of 2000. Of the LCACs in service, the US military’s EXWAR.ORG reports that 7 have reportedly been disassembled for FGE, 10 are in deep Reduced Operation Status (ROS), 2 are held for R&D, and 36 are in use on each coast.

LCAC SLEP extends the expected service life of the LCAC by 50%, from 20 years to 30 years. The program began in late 2000, and includes two sub-programs:

The “C4N” (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Navigation) sub-program replaces the LN-66 radars with modern, high-power P-80 radar systems. The SLEP will also include open-architecture electronics relying on modern commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment, which allows much easier incorporation of precision navigation systems, new communications systems, et. al. LED screens and LED keyboards use less power than the old Cathode Ray Tubes and the bulb-type indicators, and generate less heat. When coupled with the air-conditioning that has been added to the LCAC command modules, the hovercraft’s crew and electronics are given a better environment.

A new deep hovercraft skirt to reduce drag, increase the performance envelope over water and land, and reduce maintenance requirements.

LCAC-related Contracts, 2005 – Present

FY 2019

WinXP forces C4N switch.

USN on LCAC

May 13/19: 10 MT7 The Navy awarded Rolls-Royce an $8.6 million contract modification in order to procure 10 MT7 marin turbine installation parts kit shipsets for the Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) 100 class craft. The LCAC 100 will enhance the US amphibious force’s ship-to-shore capacity with a rated load capacity per craft of 74 short tonnes. LCAC-1s have a 60-short tonne-rated payload. The landing craft was originally designated the Ship-to-Shore Connector and is intended to support the rapid movement of Marine expeditionary forces from naval vessels to shore and will be able to tactically deliver personnel and heavy equipment. The LCAC 100 craft consists of four MT7 turbines. The Rolls-Royce MT7 delivers between 4 to 5 MW and shares common core architecture with the AE1107C-Liberty aero engine. The procurement is in support of the Ship-to-Shore Connector Program. An MT7 installation parts kit is one “shipset” consisting of four engine intakes, two right-hand engine exhausts and two left-hand engine exhausts. Work will take place in Indiana and is expected to be finished by January 2021.

February 4/19: Rolls-Royce provides 20 MT7 The Naval Sea Systems Command Washington awarded Rolls-Royce a $42 million contract modification to procure 20 Marine Turbine (MT7) engines for the Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) 100 Class craft in support of the Ship to Shore program. The LCAC-100 is a new class of landing hovercraft being developed by Textron Marine and Land Systems for the U.S. Navy. The craft are to replace the aging LCACs (landing craft, air cushion) in U.S. service. The LCAC 100 will enhance the US amphibious force’s ship-to-shore capacity with a rated load capacity per craft of 74 short tonnes. LCAC-1s have a 60-short tonne-rated payload. The landing craft was originally designated the Ship-to-Shore Connector and is intended to support the rapid movement of Marine expeditionary forces from naval vessels to shore and will be able to tactically deliver personnel and heavy equipment. The LCAC 100 craft consists of four MT7 turbines. The Rolls-Royce MT7 delivers between 4 to 5 MW and shares common core architecture with the AE1107C-Liberty aero engine that powers the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. Work under the modification includes production of the MT7 engines and delivery to Textron Marine Systems for assembly, and will take place in Indiana. Completion of the work is expected to be in December 2020.

FY 2018

November 19/18: Engines Rolls Royce is being contracted to support the US Navy’s Ship-to-Shore Connector program. The company is being awarded with a firm-fixed-price modification worth $41 million. The contract provides for the procurement of 20 MT7 marine turbine engines used to power Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) 100-class craft 109 through 113. The program seeks to replace existing Navy landing hovercraft with the LCAC 100 due to current craft nearing the end of their service life. Each LCAC 100 craft mounts four MT7 engines. The MT7 combines modern turbine materials and technology to provide a state-of-the-art power system suited to a range of naval applications such as main propulsion and power generation. Work to be performed includes production of the MT7 engines and delivery to Textron Marine Systems for the assembly of the LCAC 100 class craft. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, Indiana, and is expected to be completed by January, 2020.

September 13/18: SLEPing away The US Navy is awarding Tecnico Corp with a contract in support of the Landing Craft, Air Cushion service life extension program (LCAC SLEP). The firm-fixed-price contract has a value of $25.6 million and provides for three LCAC SLEP availabilities. The company will be responsible to repair and upgrade the LCAC’s buoyancy box, replace its gas turbine engine and will install a new skirt and an integrated command, control, computers, communications and navigation equipment package. The Landing Craft Air Cushion is a high-speed, over-the-beach fully amphibious air cushion landing craft capable of carrying a 75 ton maximum payload and operating from existing and planned well deck ships. The craft is used to transport weapons systems, equipment, cargo and personnel from ship to shore and across the beach. The LCAC SLEP will extend the service life of the platform from 20 to 30 years. Work will be performed in Little Creek, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by February 2021.

FY 2014

Oct 2/14: WinXP bites. The LCAC fleet is the latest platform to be bitten by Microsoft’s decision to end support for Windows XP. The Navy completes the Critical Design Review for a new Command, Control, Communications, Computers & Navigation (C4N) suite, “System Baseline Configuration 4”:

“In order to address software obsolescence in the C4N suite, the LCAC Software Support Activity is transitioning from embedded Windows XP to Windows 7 for the Windows-based nodes of the system. The C4N software re-host from SBC3 to SBC4 is also leveraging off of newer [Modular Open Scalable Approach USN specifications] technology in order to reduce the required number of processing units to support the new modular, open-scalable architecture approach.”

This approach seems to create the same problem down the road, but at least they weren’t crazy enough to use Windows 8. The hardware shifts are actually the bigger benefit, lowering volume, weight and power requirements. It also switches the hardware from front I/O connectors to swappable and testable line replaceable unit boxes. That should cut maintenance time nicely.

The LCAC C4N suite provides the 3-person crew with 6 sunlight readable, Night Vision Device compatible LCD displays in the Command Module. Feeds include 4 sensor interface units that provide the signal conditioning and conversion for 190 different sensors and alarms. The navigation system integrates with a 25 kW surface search radar, a primary and secondary GPS system, and an inertial navigation system. A common data recorder is used to transfer mission plans, while recording of real-time navigation, audio, and engineering data/actions. Beyond the screens, a fly-by-wire control system with 2 fully redundant engineering control system processing units is used to pilot the craft. The Navy calls them pilots, because LCACs “fly” on a cushion of air. Sources: NAVSEA, “New LCAC C4N Suite Completes Critical Design Review”.

FY 2010 – 2013

10 SLEP.

Landed.
(click to view full)

Sept 26/13: +2 SLEP. L-3 Unidyne, Inc., Norfolk, VA, is being awarded a $13.7 million firm-fixed-priced contract for 2 LCAC Service Life Extension Program craft in FY 2013. All funds are committed immediately.

This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 1 offer received by US NAVSEA in Washington, DC. No contract number was given, but it’s likely to be part of N00024-12-C-2402.

April 1/13: Engines. Vericor Power Systems LLC in Alpharetta, GA receives a $12.1 million contract modification for the manufacture, testing and delivery of 8 LCAC ETF40B Marine gas turbine engines as well as the repair/refurbishment of 8 output group modules for LCAC engines. Each LCAC uses 4 turbines, so this will provide for another 2 overhauled LCACs. That makes 8 hovercraft worth since the February 2012 award that specified 8 SLEPped LCACs. Guess funds are a bit tight with everything going on in Washington.

Work will be performed in Alpharetta, GA (90%), and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (10%), and is expected to be completed by February 2014. All funds are committed immediately. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contracts (N00024-12-C-4154).

April 1/13: Engines. Vericor Power Systems LLC in Alpharetta, GA receives a $12.1 million contract modification for the manufacture, testing and delivery of 8 LCAC ETF40B Marine gas turbine engines as well as the repair/refurbishment of 8 output group modules for LCAC engines. Each LCAC uses 4 turbines, so this will provide for 2 overhauled LCACs.

Work will be performed in Alpharetta, GA (90%), and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (10%), and is expected to be completed by February 2014. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 Shipbuilding and Conversion budgets. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contracts (N00024-12-C-4154).

July 6/12: SSC. Textron, Inc. in New Orleans, LA wins a $212.7 million fixed-priced incentive-fee contract for the detail design and construction of a ship to shore connector (SSC) test and training hovercraft successor type to the LCAC. This contract includes options for up to 8 production SSC hovercraft, which could bring the cumulative value to $570.5 million.

May 7/12: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC in Alpharetta, GA receives a $23.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for the manufacture, testing, and delivery of 16 ETF40B marine gas turbine engines in support of the LCAC SLEP program, and the repair/refurbishment of 16 output group modules for LCAC engines. That would cover 4 LCACs.

This contract includes options, which could bring its cumulative value to $60.7 million. Work will be performed in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and is expected to complete by June 2013 (N00024-12-C-4154).

Feb 27/12: +8 SLEP. L-3 Unidyne, Inc. in Norfolk, VA receives a pair of contracts worth $68.2 million, to SLEP a total of 8 LCACs – 4 on each coast. This brings the number of announced LCAC SLEP orders to 30 hovercraft between April 2005 and the present.

Contract #1 is a $31.4 million modification to SLEP 4 of Assault Craft Unit Four’s hovercraft in Virginia Beach, VA, and is expected to complete by February 2014 (N00024-12-C-2402).

Contract #2 a $26.8 million modification to SLEP 4 of Assault Craft Unit Five’s hovercraft in Camp Pendleton, CA, and is expected to be completed by February 2014 (N00024-12-C-2403).

Sept 26/11: Support. GE Aviation Systems, LLC’s Dowty Propellers in Sterling, VA receives a not-to-exceed $6.7 million unfinalized contractual action against an existing basic ordering agreement to repair marine propellers used aboard LCAC vessels. Work will be performed in Sterling VA (85%), and in the United Kingdom (15%), and is expected to be complete by February 2014.

One company was solicited for the non-competitive requirement, and 1 offer was received. $3.35 million is committed. NAVSUP Weapons System Support in Mechanicsburg, PA manages the contract (N00104-11-G-A004).

Jan 20/11: Engines. Vericor Power Systems LLC announces a firm fixed-price contract for up to 34 of its ETF40B marine gas turbine engines, and overhaul of related hardware for the US Navy’s FY 2010/2011 LCAC Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). This would cover 8 LCACs, plus 2 spares.

The firm adds that they will be offering their TF60B for the US Navy’s new Ship-to-Shore Connector LCAC replacement program. The new engine is based on the TF40/ETF40B, but adds improvements. For instance, its power-producer is mounted to a heavy duty marine inlet module on the craft, which aims to eliminate major alignment and maintenance problems on the LCAC. The TF60B engine test schedule continues, with performance testing slated for spring 2011 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD.

Nov 15/10: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC in Alpharetta, GA receives a $16.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for 12 of the LCAC’s ETF40B marine gas turbine engines. Work will be performed in Winnipeg, Canada, and is expected to be complete by July 2012. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-11-C-4113).

Nov 4/10: Support. L-3 Services, Inc.’s Unidyne Division in Norfolk, VA wins a $473,469 contract for LCAC 55 Continuous Maintenance Availability (CMAV), including miscellaneous electrical, mechanical, and structural repairs. Work will be performed at a government facility.

It is a good illustration of the fact that the LCAC fleet is also maintained and overhauled using a number of smaller contracts which do not reach DefenseLINK’s $5 million announcement threshold. An Oct 27/10 solicitation for LCAC 51 is similar, but is a small-business set aside. US FedBizOpps.

FY 2008 – 2009

9 SLEP.

LCAC in Haiti, 2009
(click to view full)

Sept 29/10: +3 SLEP. L-3 Services, Inc.’s Unidyne Division in Norfolk, VA wins a $14.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for service life extension program on LCACs 63, 72 and 74. This contract includes provisions for over and above work, which could bring its cumulative value to $17.5 million. Work will be performed in Camp Pendleton, CA, and is expected to be complete by August 2012. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with 5 proposals solicited and 2 offers received. The Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages this contract (N55236-10-C-0012).

Aug 11/09: +3 SLEP. Oceaneering International, Inc.’s Marine Services Division in Chesapeake, VA receives a $13.6 million contract modification to extend the service life of 3 LCACs via repair and upgrade of the buoyancy box, gas turbine engine replacement, installation of a new skirt, installation of an integrated C4N equipment package, craft alterations, and repair work.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA, and is expected to complete it by August 2012. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-09-C-2240).

May 26/09: +3 SLEP. Oceaneering International’s Marine Services Division in Chesapeake, VA won a $14 million firm-fixed-price contract to extend the service life of 3 LCACs via repair and upgrade of the buoyancy box, gas turbine engine replacement, installation of a new skirt, installation of an integrated C4N equipment package, craft alterations, and repair work. This contract includes options which would bring its cumulative value to $38.9 million.

Oceaneering will perform the work in Norfolk, VA and expects to complete it by November 2012. This contract was competitively procured via FedBizOpps.com, with 4 offers received by the Naval Sea Systems Command at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC (N00024-09-C-2240).

April 20/09: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC, in Alpharetta, GA received a $32.1 million firm-fixed-price modification to a previously awarded contract, exercising an option to build, test, and deliver 24 ETF40B marine gas turbine engines for the FY 2009 LCAC SLEP program. That would equip 6 LCACS. Work will be performed in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and is expected to be complete by August 2010. The US Naval Sea Systems Command (NVSEA) in Washington, DC issued the contract (N00024-08-C-4117).

Oct 2/08: Support. Gryphon Technologies LC in Greenbelt, MD received a $17.2 million cost-plus fixed fee contract on Sept 30/08, for the procurement of Expeditionary Warfare Program and LCAC maintenance, modification, repair, and trial support engineering support services. The contractor will provide all personnel, materials, equipment, services for the engineering, & technical support required to provide logistics and material support for the LCAC Program.

Work will be performed in Panama City, FL, and is expected to be complete by October 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $300,000 expired at the end of FY 2008, on Sept 30th. This contract was competitively procured and advertised via Navy Electronic Commerce On-line and Federal Business Opportunities website, with one offer received by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division in Panama City, FL (N61331-08-D-0021).

FY 2007 – 2008

6 SLEP.

LCAC & CH-53 exercise
with FS Tonnerre
(click to view full)

Aug 27/08: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC in Alpharetta, GA received a $20.5 million firm-fixed-price contract to build, test, and deliver 16 ETF40B marine gas turbine engines for the FY 2008 LCAC Service Life Extension Program (SLEP), which would cover 4 LCACs. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $57.8 million.

Work will be performed in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and is expected to be complete by October 2009. This contract was not competitively procured, but the solicitation was posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC (N00024-08-C-4117).

April 2/07: +3 SLEP. L-3 Communications Titan Corporation’s Unidyne Division in Norfolk, VA received a $22.9 million modification to under previously awarded contract to exercise options for preparation and accomplishment of the FY 2007 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) availabilities of landing craft air cushions (LCAC) 36, LCAC 50, and LCAC 69, at assault craft unit 4.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA and is expected to be complete March 2009. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract (N00024-06-C-2203).

March 30/07: +3 SLEP. L-3 Communications Titan Corp’s Unidyne Division in Norfolk, VA received a $22.9 million modification to a previously awarded contract, exercising options for preparation and accomplishment of the FY 2007 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) availabilities of LCAC 36, LCAC 50, and LCAC 69, at assault craft unit 4.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA and is expected to be complete in March 2009. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-06-C-2203).

Feb 20/07: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC in Alpharetta, GA received a $29.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order to previously awarded contract for the manufacture, testing and delivery of 24 ETF40B marine gas turbine engines, which would equip 6 LCACs. This covers LCAC SLEP requirements for FY 2007.

Work will be performed at Standard Aero Energy in Winnipeg, Canada under a 2005 partnership agreement, and is expected to be complete by November 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract (N00024-06-D-4107).

“During this conference, we look at all the major issues with the functions and operation of LCACs… This year we’re talking about funding, man hours and maintenance because we want to extend [the LCAC’s] service life. The LCACs have a service life of 20 years, but we can extend that by 10 years with maintenance and upgrades.”

FY 2005 – 2006

10 SLEP.

Incoming…
(click to enlarge)

Aug 21/06: +2 SLEP. L-3 Communications Titan Corporation’s Unidyne Division in Norfolk, VA received a $16.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for the SLEP of LCACs #29 and #32. The LCAC provides heavy lift capability to perform amphibious assaults and operational maneuvers from the sea. This contract includes options for SLEPping LCACs # 31, 48, and 33 as well, which would bring the cumulative value of this contract to 5 craft and $40 million if exercised.

Work will be performed at Assault Craft Unit Five in Camp Pendleton, CA and is expected to be complete by August 2008. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website with 29 proposals solicited and two offers received. The Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA issued the contract (N55236-06-C-0001).

Mar 16/06: Engines. Vericor Power Systems, LLC in Alpharetta, GA received a $28.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for the manufacture, testing and delivery of 20 ETF40B marine gas turbine engines and 4 Pack-Up Kit spare engines for the Landing Craft-Air Cushion Service Life Extension Program.

Work will be performed at Standard Aero Energy in Winnipeg, Canada under a 2005 partnership agreement, and is expected to be complete by December 2008. The contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-06-D-4107).

Nov 22/05: +3 SLEP. L-3 Communications Titan Unidyne in Norfolk, VA won an $8.8 million firm-fixed-price contract to upgrade landing craft air cushion (LCAC) hovercraft 62, 64, 65, and 76. Work will be performed in Camp Pendleton, CA and is expected to be complete by October 2006. This contract was competitively procured and advertised via the Internet, with two offers received. The Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA issued the contract (N55236-06-C-0002).

April 14/05: +5 SLEP. Titan Corp.’s Unidyne Group in Norfolk, VA won a $26.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for 5 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) hovercraft.

Work will be performed in Camp Pendleton, CA (80%) and Norfolk, VA (20%), and is expected to be complete by August 2007. The contact was competitively awarded and advertised via the Navy Electronic Commerce on Line website, with three offers received. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC manages the contract.

Other Fast Landing Options

Naval Technology – CNIM. Their L-CAT is the French EDA-R catamaran landing craft: 30m long and 12m wide, and can carry a payload of 80t at a cruise speed of 18 kts. EDA-R is a fast catamaran in transit mode, but features a central elevating deck that makes it become a flat-bottomed ship to beach, or enter an amphibious ship’s well deck.

Warships get a lot of attention, but without resupply, an impressive-looking fleet becomes a hollow force. The US Navy’s supply and support fleet has been aging, and needed new vessels. T-AKE is part of that effort, and the ships have also found themselves performing “naval diplomacy” roles.

The entire T-AKE dry cargo/ ammunition ship program could have a total value of as much as $6.2 billion, and a size of 14 ships, as the US looks to modernize its supply fleet. How do T-AKE ships fit into US naval operations? What ships do they replace? What’s the tie-in to US civilian industrial capacity? How were environmental standards built into their design? And what contracts have been issued for T-AKE ships to date?

T-AKE Ships: Mission & Capabilities

How it works
(click to view full)

T-AKE multi-product fleet replenishment ships will provide logistics lift to station ships and other ships operating with naval forces from supply sources such as friendly ports, and at sea from merchant vessels. In other words, their primary mission is to provide a steady stream of ammunition, spare parts and provisions (dry, refrigerated and frozen) to naval forces at sea in their role as a shuttle ship.

As a secondary mission, they may operate in concert with a T-AO oiler as a semi-substitute for one AOE-1 Sacramento Class, or with AOE-6 Supply Class fast combat logistics support ships if the situation so dictates. Given the T-AKE’s fuel capacity, it would certainly require at least a T-AO oiler as well in order to service any Carrier or Amphibious strike group.

The AOEs are also referred to as “station ships.” They offer a form of one-stop shopping by carrying dry stores (food, consumables, spare parts), ammunition (bombs, missiles) and fuel (oil, jet fuel), and are able to transfer them all simultaneously. Often, shuttle ships simply resupply the AOE station ship.

T-AKE 1 in Crete
(click to view full)

Lewis and Clark Class T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ships are 210 meters (689 feet) in length and 32.2 meters (105.6 feet) in beam, with a design draft of 9.12 meters (29.9 feet). They displace 41,000 tons, and the ships can carry almost 7,000 metric tons of dry cargo and ammunition and 23,500 barrels of marine diesel fuel. The specifications demanded that the transfer rates for ammunition and stores must be at least equal to those of the AOE-6 Class. Maximum speed is slower, however, at around 20 knots of burst speed.

The T-AKEs will provide a 2-product (ammunition; and combat stores – including dry stores, frozen and chilled products, spare parts, and consumables that may include drinkable water) shuttle ship replacement for US Military Sealift Command’s aging Combat Store (T-AFS 1 Mars Class) and Ammunition (T-AE 26 Kilauea Class) shuttle ships. They are designed to be fully inter-operable with all US Navy and North Atlantic Treaty organization ships capable of underway replenishment, using standard US Navy Underway Replenishment (UNREP) equipment, or improved systems developed by industry.

ASRS test
(click to view full)

As one example, the US Navy is testing the Automated Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS), an automatic shipboard storeroom system that can be configured to store Navy-standard pallets, Joint Modular Intermodal Containers, or any other packaging container, offering faster performance, less work, and fully selective offloading. ASRS is intended to be a low-maintenance system that can operate in Sea State 5 (waves up to 7 feet, just under Small Craft Advisory), and survive to Sea Sate 9 (hurricane force winds and/or waves well over 14m/45 feet, “hey isn’t that Laird Hamilton out there?” conditions). With their single propulsion screw (mariners do not call them “propellers”) and single rudder, however, mechanical problems can become disabling more quickly than is the case for multiple screw or multiple rudder designs.

T-AKE ships are the US Navy’s first full-size all-electric ships, with diesel-electric generation that can be used for propulsion or for internal systems. The use of electric drive creates more internal redundancy in the event of damage. It also eliminates the need for drive shaft and reduction gears, which brings benefits to the ship’s internal space and makes for a quieter ship that’s harder to find using sonar. The ship class’ 4 Fairbanks Morse/MAN B&W 9L and 8L 48/60 diesel generators can generate up to 35.7 MW of power for use around the ship, compared to just 7.5 MW of power generated by the DDG-51 AEGIS destroyers to run internal machinery and combat systems.

SA330 from T-AKE 1
(click to view full)

T-AKE ships have a crew of 124 CIVMARs – civilian mariners who function under Secretary of the Navy instructions, and are Excepted Service employees of the US government. Military Sealift Command’s Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force serves as their program manager, but the ships are assigned to Fleet Forces Command. As such, these ships are given the USNS (name) designation and “placed in service,” unlike Navy warships which are given the USS (name) designation and commissioned. The T-AKE’s military detachment is 11 Navy sailors, who provide operational support and supply coordination.

Another effect of this CIVMAR difference can be seen in the ship’s air assets. T-AKE ships are capable of landing, fueling and maintaining up to 2 utility helicopters like the CH-46D Sea Knight or MH-60S Knight Hawk, with hangar space for 2 machines. In practice, however, they do not carry US Navy helicopters. Instead, they carry contracted Eurocopter SA330 Puma medium helicopters, which are used to help transfer personnel and cargo in VERTREP (Vertical Replenishment) operations. Other Navy helicopters may land on T-AKE ships and assist, of course, but they are not part of the T-AKE ship’s native complement.

The T-AKE Program

USS George Washington
& USNS Carl Brashear
(click to view full)

As noted below, the initial October 2001 contract called for the design and construction of the lead ship and the 1st follow ship, with additional follow-on ships included as contract options. At the time, the total cost if all options were exercised and 11 ships were built was projected at $3.75 billion (presumably in FY 2001 dollars). In April 2007, the Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Report placed total actual and estimated program costs at $5.715 billion, based on 12 ships, with inflation rates included over the project’s entire lifetime. Thanks to a multi-year agreement hammered out in August 2007, the T-AKE program now has the potential to produce a total of 14 ships to be awarded through 2011, with a total value of $6.2 billion. Named USNS ships of the T-AKE Lewis and Clark Class all have a strong exploration bent; named ships to date include:

T-AKE 1 USNS Lewis & Clark

T-AKE 2 USNS Sacagawea

T-AKE 3 USNS Alan Sheppard

T-AKE 4 USNS Richard E Byrd

T-AKE 5 USNS Robert E. Peary. No disrespect, but this should have been USNS Dave Brubeck.

T-AKE 6 USNS Amelia Earhart

T-AKE 7 USNS Carl Brashear

T-AKE 8 USNS Wally Schirra

T-AKE 9 USNS Matthew Perry

T-AKE 10 USNS Charles Drew

T-AKE 11 USNS Washington Chambers

T-AKE 12 USNS William McLean

T-AKE 13 USNS Medgar Evers

T-AKE 14 USNS Cesar Chavez

Of these 14, 12 will serve in the classic logistics lift role. Another 2 T-AKE ships will go into the Maritime Prepositioning Service with a different cargo loadout, to support the US Marine Corps. The BOLD ALLIGATOR exercise’s February 2012 landing of an MV-22 Osprey aboard USNS Robert E. Peary is connected with that role. It means the Marines can lift ammunition directly from a T-AKE ship to shore, rather than using further transfer to other ships. Turning this test into an operational capability will take more work and testing. Having 2 T-AKE ships in the MPS should provide plenty of opportunity.

T-AKE Ships: The Civilian Industry Angle

T-AKE Drawing
(click to view full)

As a deliberate design decision, T-AKE ships have been built to commercial standards to the extent that this was practical. The commercial standards approach removes the potential bottlenecks of military standards, and removes the need for commercial shipbuilders to follow a whole different set of procedures and requirements. This minimizes costs, allows the USA to take advantage of industry innovations and commercial best practices (which can reduce life cycle cost and improve efficiencies), and allows the shipbuilders to build up their civilian industrial capacity.

That last item was especially important to the T-AKE program.

In recent decades, the US Merchant Marine has declined, most civilian shipbuilding has migrated away from the United States to nations like South Korea, and ship ownership has migrated strongly toward direct and indirect ownership by Chinese firms. This has obvious implications for the overall sustainability of the US shipbuilding industry, and raises national security self-sufficiency concerns for the world’s pre-eminent naval power. GlobalSecurity.org notes that the ADC (X) program (which eventually became T-AKE) was seen as especially critical to demonstrate America’s ability to produce affordable and flexible container-type ships without going overseas. The idea was that ships would contribute to America’s overall shipbuilding infrastructure because their design would be a common hull having tremendous application to the civilian shipbuilding industry. So T-AKE’s goal was really two-fold: re-capitalization of the Navy’s sealift needs, and implementing a program that would impact America’s ability to competitively build ships on the civilian market.

NASSCO’s Jan 31/06 release noted that the exercise of the option for the 9th T-AKE ship brought NASSCO’s backlog to 10 ships, including the 9 T-AKEs and the 4th of 4 double-hull oil tankers being built for BP Shipping Company of Alaska. The question is what will happen when T-AKE construction ends, which is due to happen soon. Building the USA’s Mobile Landing Platform ships will take up some of that slack, but it’s a small class.

T-AKE Ships and the Environment

(click to feel better)

The existing T-AO Kaiser Class Fleet Oilers are not all double-hulled like the T-AKE – only the last 3 T-AOs are double-hulled. The Kaiser Class will need to be updated to meet international oil pollution conventions, and to address the wear being placed on them by the current high operational tempo.

Given the inevitable reductions in active T-AO ships during the refit period, T-AKE vessels will be particularly welcome in the fleet. For several reasons.

GlobalSecurity.org notes that this new class of T-AKE ships was envisaged as the first Navy Environmentally Sound Ship of the 21st century built with protection of the marine environment as a design objective. Performance requirements were crafted in the T-AKE ships’ System Specification that would ensure compliance with environmental regulations projected for the next 20 years.

Central themes are compliance with international and national regulations, adaptation of pollution prevention measures though elimination of pollutants at the source (design them out at the onset), establishment of a hazardous material prohibition list, and a second list of materials that may only be used with government concurrence. USNS Lewis and Clark is the first Navy ship designed to be Ozone Depleting Substance free. It is also capable of performing mid-ocean ballast water exchange to minimize introduction of invasive species, and incorporates a combined sewage/graywater treatment system, and a double hull around cargo fuel areas to afford port access. Analysis of total pollutant loading between the T-AFS and T-AE ships and the T-ADC (X)/ T-AKE design showed a drop of 95% in total pollutants being introduced into the marine environment.

Management of the Environmental Protection Program rests with the Assistant Project Manager, and the government/ industry team is responsible for ensuring environmental performance through the Environmental Protection Working Group.

T-AKE Ships: Contracts & Key Events

UNREP: USS Essex &
USNS Alan Sheppard
(click to view full)

Thanks to a multi-year agreement hammered out in August 2007, the T-AKE program is now slated to produce a total of 14 ships, with a total value of up to $6.2 billion. Unless otherwise specified, US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued these contracts and modifications to General Dynamics subsidiary National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. (GD NASSCO) in San Diego, CA.

FY 2019

T-AKE 10 & DDG-92
(click to view full)

April 25/19: Overhaul and Drydocking of T-AKE 8 Vigor Marine won a $14.3 million contract in support of the USNS Wally Schirra or T-AKE 8. The Lewis and Clark Class cargo ship has a length of 689 feet and was launched on March 8, 2009. The mission of Lewis and Clark Class ships is to deliver ammunition, provisions, stores, spare parts, potable water and petroleum products to carrier battle groups and other naval forces, serving as a shuttle ship or station ship. The deal provides for regular overhaul and dry docking. Work will take place in Portland, Oregon and the estimated completion date is August 25, 2019.

February 15/19: T-AKE 12 The US Navy’s Military Sealift Command contracted Detyens Shipyards $10.5 million for a 50-calendar day shipyard availability for the regular overhaul and dry docking of USNS William McLean (T-AKE 12). Detyens Shipyards operates a commercial shipyard on the East Coast of the US. It provides ship repair and conversion services. The USNS William McLean is a Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo ship. The Lewis and Clark class of dry cargo ship is a class of 14 Combat Logistics Force underway replenishment vessels. Work under the contract includes clean and gas-free tanks, voids, cofferdams and spaces, main engine and electric motor maintenance, 10-year crane maintenance and recertification, dry-docking and undocking, propeller shaft and stern tube inspect, freshwater (closed loop) stern tube lubrication, underwater hull cleaning and painting, 2.5-year bow thruster maintenance and tunnel grating modification, renew flight deck nonskid, and auxiliary pre-stage area refrigeration installation. Work will take place in North Charleston, South Carolina, and is expected to be finished by July 16 this year.

February 12/19: T-AKE7 overhaul and dry-docking The US Navy’s Military Sealift Command (MSC) awarded a $17 million contract to Vigor Marin Inc. for a 75-calendar day shipyard availability for the regular overhaul and dry docking of USNS Carl Brashear (T-AKE 7). USNS Carl Brashear is a Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo ship delivered to the Navy by General Dynamics on March 4, 2009. Lewis and Clark Class T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ships are 210 meters in length and 32.2 meters in beam, with a design draft of 9.12 meters. Vigor Marine provides vessel construction and repair services including dry-docking, structural repair, welding, machinery repair, diesel engine repair, shaft seal replacement, tube renewal among others. Work for this contract, which will take place in Portland, Oregon will entail clean and gas-free tanks, voids, cofferdams and spaces, propulsion motor and cooler, main generator maintenance and cleaning, high voltage switchboard and emergency switchboard cleaning, five-year main engine flex hose replacement, dry-docking and undocking, propeller shaft and stern tube inspect, freshwater stern tube lubrication, underwater hull cleaning and painting, freeboard cleaning and painting, sea valve replacements, renew flight deck nonskid, and reverse osmosis unit sea-chest installation. Work is scheduled to be completed by May 15 this year.

FY 2013

July 5/13: T-AKE 7 drydocking. BAE Systems San Francisco Ship Repair in San Francisco, CA receives a $10.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for a 56-calendar day regular overhaul and dry docking of USNS Carl Brashear. All funds are committed immediately, but the contract includes options which could bring its total value to $12.3 million.

Work will include inspection of the propeller shaft and stern tube, cleaning and painting of the hull, inspection and polish of the bow thruster propeller, installation of the cloropac unit and overhaul of the seal valves. Work will be performed in San Francisco, CA, and is expected to be complete by Sept 25/13. This contract was competitively procured, with proposals solicited via FBO.gov, and 1 offer received. US Military Sealift Command Norfolk in Norfolk, VA manages the contract (N32205-13-C-3015).

Feb 5/13: TAKE-5 drydocking. Detyens Shipyards Inc. in North Charleston, SC receives an $8.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for a 55-calendar day regular overhaul and dry docking of USNS Robert E. Peary. Improvements will include installing a reverse-osmosis system to produce fresh water; inspecting the propeller shaft and stern tube; overhauling sea valves; installing a chlorpac unit; and cleaning and painting of the underwater hull. It’s not quite the same as T-AKE 4’s list, which explains why the price is so different. The contract includes options which could bring the total value to $9.9 million.

Work will be performed in North Charleston, SC, and is expected to be complete by May 2013. All contract funds are committed in FY 2013, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year of Sept 30/13. This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, but just 1 offer was received by Military Sealift Command Norfolk in Norfolk, VA (N32205-13-C-3010).

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). T-AKE is included, and most of the type’s previous deficiencies now list as corrected.

One deficiency that popped up is potential vulnerability to hackers. Category I vulnerabilities were found during an Information Assurance audit, and a subsequent Red Team effort gained system access.

The other 2 are related to T-KAE’s protection measures again chemical, biological or radiation attacks. Corrosion in the Countermeasure Water Wash Down’s (CMWWD) mild carbon steel piping system is still a problem, and the new IPDS-LR alert system doesn’t automatically activate the ship’s general or chemical alarm. The crew must manually activate this alarm, unlike US Navy ships. IPDS-LR still works, and isn’t formally on the “fix it” list, but it is worth noting.

Nov 21/12: TAKE-4 drydocking. BAE Systems San Francisco Ship Repair in San Francisco, CA receives $13.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for a 53-calendar day regular overhaul and dry-docking of T-AKE 4, the USNS Richard E. Byrd. Improvements will include freeze chill decking structure support and repairs; installing a reverse-osmosis system to produce fresh water; inspecting the propeller shaft and stern tube; cleaning and painting of the underwater hull; and replacing the flight deck foam sprinkler piping. The contract includes options which would bring the total to $15.1 million.

Work will be performed in San Francisco, CA, and is expected to be complete by Jan 17/13. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 1 offer received (N32205-13-C-3012).

Oct 24/12: T-AKE 14 delivered. Military Sealift Command accepts delivery of its newest and last T-AKE ship, USNS Cesar Chavez, during a short ceremony at the General Dynamics NASSCO Ship Yard San Diego, CA. US MSC

FY 2012

Sept 28/12: T-AKE 14 trial. The future USNS Cesar Chavez completed its Integrated Acceptance Trial which should lead to delivery later this (civil) year. NAVSEA.

April 24/12: T-AKE 13 delivered. US Military Sealift Command accepted delivery of T-AKE 13 as USNS Medgar Evers, during a short ceremony at General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego. US MSC | US Navy | GD NASSCO.

March 16/12: T-AKE 3 drydock. BAE Systems San Francisco Ship Repair in San Francisco, CA receives a $12.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for a 55-calendar day regular overhaul and dry-docking of the USNS Alan Shepard [T-AKE-3]. Some of the major work items include dry-docking and undocking the ship, repairing interior decks, structural repairs, overhauling the main diesel generators, and inspecting and refurbishing the propeller shaft and stern tube. This contract includes options, which could raise it to $14.3 million.

Work will be performed in San Francisco, CA, and is expected to be complete by May 28/12. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. This contract was competitively procured, with 1 offer received by US Military Sealift Fleet Support Command in Norfolk, VA (N40442-12-C-3011).

Nov 12/11: T-AKE 13 launched. USNS Medgar Evers [T-AKE 13] is christened at NASSCO’s San Diego, CA shipyard. She is named in honor of the African American civil rights leader from Mississippi, who was assassinated on June 12/63 in the front yard of his Mississippi home, by Ku Klux Klan member Byron De La Beckwith. Evers had tried to end segregation at the University of Mississippi in the 1950s, and was appointed Mississippi’s first NAACP field officer in 1954. He held the position until his assassination, working for economic boycotts and peaceful protests against “Jim Crow” segregation laws. His widow, Myrlie Evers-Williams, christened the ship.

NASSCO says that its culture of continuous improvement has as reduced the labor hours required to build T-AKE 13 by 67%, compared to T-AKE-1. The ship is due for delivery to the US Navy in Q2 2012, after at-sea testing. US MSC | GD NASSCO.

FY 2011

Sept 28/11: T-AKE 12 delivered. General Dynamics NASSCO delivers USNS William McLean to the U.S. Navy, during a signing ceremony at its San Diego, CA shipyard. US MSC | GD NASSCO.

Aug 23/11: Cam Ranh Bay. USNS Robert E. Byrd [T-AKE-4] leaves Cam Ranh Bay, after becoming the 1st US Navy vessel to visit the southern Vietnamese port in over 30 years. She spent 7 days at Cam Ranh Shipyard for routine maintenance and repairs that included underwater hull cleaning, polishing of the ship’s propeller, repairing shipboard piping, and overhaul of the salt water cooling system.

MSC Ship Support Unit Singapore routinely contracts shipyards throughout Southeast Asia to conduct maintenance and repairs, reducing transit times and hence the amount of time these ships are off-mission. US MSC.

May 19/11: T-AKE 14 named. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announces that T-AKE 14 will be named USNS Cesar Chavez. Chavez served in the Navy from 1944-1946, then became a leader in the American labor movement, and a civil rights activist who co-founded the National Farm Workers Association union. The choice ends up focusing unfriendly attention on Mabus’ politicization of ship names. US MSC.

May 10/11: T-AKE 14 keel. General Dynamics NASSCO hosts a keel laying ceremony for T-AKE 14 at its San Diego, CA shipyard. Construction began in October 2010, and the ship is scheduled to be delivered to the U.S. Navy in Q4 2012. GD NASSCO also touts shipbuilding progress to date:

“During the course of the decade-long T-AKE Program, General Dynamics NASSCO has implemented more than 20,000 ideas to drive down costs and improve quality as part of its continuing commitment to the efficient production of world-class ships for the U.S. Navy. These enhancements are the result of ongoing process improvement initiatives, Lean Six Sigma projects, facility investments of more than $300 million since 2000 and capturing and rigorously applying lessons learned… In just five years, NASSCO has reduced the labor hours required to build a T-AKE by more than 60 percent, while completing construction in half the scheduled time required to build the first T-AKE ship…”

April 17/11: T-AKE 12 launched. GD NASSCO launches the USNS William McLean [T-AKE 12] dry cargo/ammunition supply ship at its San Diego shipyard. William Burdette McLean was a Navy physicist who conceived and developed the heat-seeking Sidewinder missile. NASSCO began building the USNS William McLean in September 2009. Following its at-sea testing phase, the ship will be delivered to the Navy in the 3rd quarter of 2011. GD NASSCO | US Navy pic.

March 25/11: T-AKE 1 drydocking. Detyens Shipyards, Inc. in North Charleston, SC wins a $7.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for a 55-calendar-day regular overhaul of USNS Lewis and Clark [T-AKE 1], including options which would bring the cumulative value to $8.8 million. This regular overhaul will include dry-docking and undocking the ship; underwater hull painting; main engine overhaul; propeller shaft inspection; cleaning and gas freeing tanks, voids and cofferdams; tank structural surveying and testing; and non-skid renewal.

Work will be performed in Charleston, S.C., and is expected to be completed by June 2011. Contract funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. This contract was competitively procured and posted to the Federal Business Opportunities Web page, with 3 offers received. The U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Fleet Support Command manages the contract (N40442-11-C-3049).

“…goes out 20-plus miles… They test all the systems, including drop anchor and hauling it back up. This is usually done just off Coronado Roads (Silver Strand). Take the engine through all its configurations. Test the cranes, test the replenishment equipment (cabling, winches), run the fluids through the lines. Test the radar, fire fighting systems, top side sprinkling systems.”

Oct 26/10: T-AKE 13 keel. General Dynamics NASSCO lays the keel for T-AKE 13, the Medgar Evers. The ship is named in honor of the African American civil rights activist whose 1963 murder prompted President John F. Kennedy to ask Congress for a comprehensive civil rights bill.

NASSCO also cites a number of improvements since launching T-AKE 1, aimed at driving down costs and improving quality. These improvements involved facility investments, workforce training and capturing and applying lessons learned. For example, design enhancements feature an electronic sensor-triggered fire extinguishing system that eliminates a mechanical arrangement. This results in fewer parts, and hopefully higher reliability and lower costs.

Oct 21/10: T-AKE 14 begun. General Dynamics NASSCO begins construction of the 14th T-AKE ship, which is scheduled to be delivered to the U.S. Navy in Q4 2012. Source.

FY 2010

Sept 11/10: T-AKE 11 launch. General Dynamics NASSCO launches the USNS Washington Chambers [T-AKE 11], during a christening ceremony at the shipyard, on San Diego’s working waterfront. NASSCO.

July 14/10: T-AKE 10 delivered. General Dynamics NASSCO delivers USNS Charles Drew [T-AKE 10] to the U.S. Navy, formally completing construction work that began in October 2008. Like other T-AKE ships, she is crewed by 124 civil service mariners, and 10 U.S. Navy sailors.

The ship is named in honor of Dr. Charles R. Drew (1904-1950), the African American surgeon and hematologist who pioneered the procedures for the safe storage and transfusion of blood. US MSC | GD NASSCO.

May 14/10: Small business qualifier Pacific Ship Repair & Fabrication in San Diego, CA will handle post-shakedown availability contracts for USNS Matthew Perry [T-AKE 9] and USNS Charles Drew [T-AKE 10]. The multi-ship solicitation contracts include options which would bring the total contract value to $18.9 million, if exercised.

Post-shakedown availability is a normal process for ships, in order to fix and tune problems found on the initial shakedown cruise. This one will include work on the lube-oil-tank, second-deck-cargo and galley modifications; cargo hold overhead insulation; and deck air compressor and radar installation.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete within 75 calendar days, once work begins for each ship. This contract was competitively procured on a set-aside for small business basis, and posted to the Military Sealift Command, Navy Electronic Commerce Online and Federal Business Opportunities Web sites. A total of 4 offers were received by US Navy Military Sealift Fleet Support Command in Norfolk, VA, and they issued the contracts using funds from US NAVSEA PMS 325 (N40442-10-C-3020 for the USNS Matthew Perry; N40442-11-C-3000 for the USNS Charles Drew).

March 26/10: T-AKE 12 keel. General Dynamics NASSCO lays the keel for T-AKE 12, the William McLean. It’s named for the research scientists whose accomplishments include the iconic AIM-9 sidewinder short-range air-air missile. NASSCO.

Feb 26/10: T-AKE 13 & 14 ordered. A $824.6 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-02-C-2300) for construction of T-AKE 13 and T-AKE 14; the contract modification also includes design and construction, technical manuals, special studies, analyses and reviews, engineering and industrial services, and data.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by December 2013 for T-AKE 13 and November 2014 for T-AKE 14. See also Dec 12/08 long-lead items buy, GD NASSCO release.

Oct 9/09: T-AKE 13 named. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, a former governor of Mississippi from 1988-1992, announces that the Navy will name a dry cargo ammunition ship after the civil rights leader Medgar Evers. The Mississippi native’s 1963 murder, and the subsequent deadlock of 2 all white juries, prompted President John F. Kennedy to ask Congress for a comprehensive civil rights bill. Evers’ murderer, Byron De La Beckwith, was finally convicted in 1994 based on new evidence. US Navy.

Sept 16/09: Expanded role. USNS Richard E. Byrd [T-AKE 4] has to make some changes, in order to serve as the lead Pacific Partnership 2009 vessel instead of the Austin class amphibious assault vessel USS Dubuque [LPD 8]. Dubuque’s crew had begun to come down with flu symptoms, raising concerns about H1N1 transmission.

The US Navy describes the shifts on board the Byrd, including substitution of outside personnel for some crew, bringing in Army cots, adding a reverse osmosis water purifier on deck, carrying full fuel and 3 months worth of provisions for the ship’s own use, adding cargo for medical needs, adding and deploying 4 small 7m RHIB boats, etc.

May 6/09:US MSC announces that USNS Lewis and Clark [T-AKE 1] foils a pirate attack off the coast of Somalia. Once shipboard lookouts spotted the 2 suspected pirate skiffs, the ship conducted evasive maneuvers and increased speed to elude the pirates. The pirates fired small arms weapons from approximately 2 nautical miles toward Lewis and Clark, which fell 1 nautical mile short of the ship’s stern. Lewis and Clark continued to increase speed and the skiffs ceased their pursuit.

March 19/09: T-AKE 11 begun. GD NASSCO begins construction of the future USNS Washington Chambers [T-AKE 11]. The Washington Chambers is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in the first quarter of 2011. Source.

March 17/09: T-AKE 10 keel. GD NASSCO lays the keel for the future USNS Charles Drew [T-AKE 10]. Construction of the Charles Drew began in October 2008, and the ship is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in the 3rd quarter of 2010. General Dynamics release.

March 4/09: T-AKE 7 delivered. US Military Sealift Command accepts delivery of USNS Carl Brashear, after a series of tests and trials prior to delivery. MSC release | General Dynamics release.

Feb 8/09:Gannett’s Navy Times offers a profile of life aboard the USNS Robert E. Peary [T-AKE 5]. The ships do have some limitations compared to their predecessors, and their electronics can be a source of adjustment and extra work, as well as improved performance:

“He remembered serving aboard an Arctic-class ammunition ship, powered by gas turbines, and being able to keep pace with a carrier strike group at 30 knots or more. The Peary and its siblings can make a top speed of 20 knots, but not for very long. Where earlier ships had twin screws and twin rudders, affording better reliability, the Peary has a single screw and a single rudder, rendering it all-the-more vulnerable to engineering problems.

When the Peary needed to get underway for a week’s worth of qualification trials in late January, the ship’s engine systems were acting up. Just as computer users have done for years, the Peary’s engineers shut down the engine system and re-started it, temporarily solving the problem. But the touchy plant forced Karavalos to cancel a day’s worth of practice unreps so his technicians could locate problems in the propulsion system.”

DID would add that despite the article’s description of pleasant quarters and dispensed formalities compared with Navy ships is partly reflective of the fact that MSC mariners are away from home over 70-80% of the time. The ships are home, and the lack of duty seamen to do trivial work means that everyone must pitch in.

Jan 27/09: Cascade General in Portland, OR won a $13.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for post-shipyard work on USNS Amelia Earhart [T-AKE 6] and USNS Carl Brashear [T-AKE 7]. Work involves ship alterations, including the lube-oil-tank, second-deck-cargo and galley modifications; cargo hold overhead insulation; and deck air compressor and radar installation. Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA PMS 325) provides the funding for post-shipyard work, and this contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the total contract value to $17.9 million.

Work will be performed in Portland, OR and is expected to be complete within 75 calendar days. Contract funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured, with 2 offers received by U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Fleet Support Command, a field activity of Military Sealift Command (N40442-09-C-3009).

Dec 12/08: T-AKE 11 & 12 ordered. A $940.3 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-02-C-2300), exercising 2 construction options for T-AKE 11 Washington Chambers and T-AKE 12 William McLean. Earlier this year, NASSCO received a total of $200 million to purchase long lead time materials for these ships.

These funds also cover $200 million for engines and other long lead time materials and components for T-AKE 13 and T-AKE 14. GD NASSCO expects a contract that fully funds both ships by February 2010.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by February 2012 for T-AKE 11, January 2013 for T-AKE 12, December 2013 for T-AKE 13 and November 2014 for T-AKE 14. Se also GD NASSCO release.

Dec 2/08: T-AKE 9-12 named.Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter announces the names for the next 4 Lewis and Clark class T-AKE ships. All still have exploration theme, but some of these namings involve different kinds of pioneering and exploration. NAVAIR will be especially pleased by 2 of the names.

T-AKE 9 honors Navy Commodore Matthew C. Perry (1794-1858), who is most famous for sailing a naval squadron to Japan and opening it to trade. Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors executives are probably wishing that he had stayed home.

T-AKE 10 honors Dr. Charles R. Drew (1904-1950), a physician and medical researcher whose pioneering work in the late 1930s and early 1940s led to the life-saving discovery that blood could be separated into plasma. Dr. Drew was African-American, and has a medical university named after him in south Los Angeles.

T-AKE 12 honors William Burdette McLean (1914-1976), who conceived and developed the iconic Sidewinder short-range, heat-seeking air-to-air missile while serving as a physicist for the Navy. As NAVAIR’s release notes, he also pioneered the testing facility at China Lake, CA.

Nov 24/08: NAVFAC Marianas announces the 2nd increment of an $83 million firm-fixed price contract to the IBC/TOA Corporation Joint Venture based in Barrigada, Guam. The $43 million increment will be used to complete expansion of U.S. Naval Base Guam’s Kilo Wharf, used for ammunition. Cmdr. Matthew Suess, executive officer for NAVFAC Marianas:

“The extension is to accommodate the new T-AKE class of ammunition vessels, meet current seismic standards, and provide for containerized cargo operations with the installation of new crane rails.”

Oct 30/08: T-AKE 6 delivered. The USA’s Military Sealift Command accepts delivery of the USNS Amelia Earhart [T-AKE 6] in San Diego. In early December 2008, the ship will go on a short “shakedown cruise” where the ship’s crew will test a range of shipboard operations. Earhart will operate mainly in the Pacific Ocean out of Guam, and is anticipated to begin conducting missions for MSC in summer 2009. US MSC | GD NASSCO.

Sept 18/08: T-AKE 7 launched. USNS Carl Brashear [T-AKE 7] is christened and launched during a morning ceremony at the General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard in San Diego, CA. After a series of tests and sea trials, the ship will be delivered to the Navy’s Military Sealift Command for operations in 2009.

The ship honors Master Chief Petty Officer Carl Brashear, who joined the U.S. Navy in 1948. See March 3/08 entry for more on Carl Brashear. MSC release.

Sept 10/08: Detyens Shipyards, Inc. in Charleston, SC won a $7.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for a post-shipyard availability of Military Sealift Fleet Support Command dry cargo/ammunition ship USNS Robert E. Peary [T-AKE 5]. This shipyard availability is primarily for ship alterations, including lube-oil-tank, second-deck-cargo and galley modifications; cargo hold overhead insulation; and deck air compressor and radar installation. The contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the total contract value to $9.1 million.

Work will be performed in Charleston, SC and is expected to be complete within 75 calendar days. Contract funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via Military Sealift Command, Navy Electronic Commerce Online and Federal Business Opportunities websites, with 2 offers received by the U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Fleet Support Command (N40442-08-C-3011).

June 10/08: T-AKE 12 long-lead. A $100 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-02-C-2300) to exercise an option for long lead time material for T-AKE 12.

Long-lead material includes items like engines et. al. These items take time to make, but must be delivered early or else construction will be delayed. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by January 2013. See also GD release.

June 5/08: T-AKE 5 delivered. USNS Robert E. Peary [T-AKE 5] is officially accepted by the U.S. Navy.

At the end of July 2008, the ship will go a short ‘shakedown cruise’ where the ship’s crew will test a range of shipboard operations. By the end of the summer, Peary will depart for her homeport in Norfolk, and soon deploy on its first operational mission. Navy release | GD release.

“Program costs increased by $1,086.4 million (+23.5 percent) from $4,628.8 million to $5,715.2 million, due primarily to the addition of one ship from 11 to 12 ships (+$471.0 million), associated outfitting and post delivery costs (+$84.5 million), and cost growth on previous ships (+$520.6 million).”

April 6/08: T-AKE 6 launch. USNS Amelia Earhart [T-AKE-6] is launched and christened at the General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard in San Diego. See also May 28/07 entry. US Navy release.

“Although I put the T-AKE in the list of programs which are healthy, I would like our witnesses to address why the T-AKE [ship] that was requested and funded in fiscal year 2008 is not being put on contract. The subcommittee understands that the money that was requested to purchase a ship was instead used to re-negotiate contract terms. I understand the Navy thinks they can do this because the money is in a working capital fund called the National Defense Sealift Fund or NDSF.

I assure you that it is not the intent of the Congress that money authorized and appropriated for a specific purpose, in this case the procurement of a ship, would be used for any other purpose without further authorization or reprogramming.”

March 7/08: Pacific Ship Repair & Fabrication in San Diego, CA won an $11 million firm-fixed-price contract for a post shipyard availability of the USNS Richard E. Byrd (T-AKE 4). This contract is designed to take care of post-construction alterations, including conversions to the bakery, galley and scullery, as well as modifications to the 2nd deck cargo hold and bow thruster chilled-water piping system. The ship is expected to deploy on its first operational mission this summer, and the contract includes options that could bring the total contract value to $12.7 million.

Work will be performed by Pacific Ship Repair & Fabrication at the General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard in San Diego, CaA and is expected to be completed by June 2008. Contract funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured, with 3 offers received by the U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Fleet Support Command (N40442-08-C-3004).

March 3/08: T-AKE 7 & 8 named. Secretary of the Navy Dr. Donald C. Winter announced the naming of the 7th and 8th Military Sealift Command ships of the Lewis and Clark-class Auxiliary Dry Cargo ships (T-AKE) as Carl Brashear and Wally Schirra.

Master Chief Boatswain’s Mate (Master Diver) Carl M. Brashear joined the United States Navy in 1948, and became its first black deep-sea diver, first black Master Diver, and the first U.S. Navy diver to be restored to full active duty as an amputee, almost 2 difficult years after a salvage operation went awry. Brashear was the subject of the 2000 movie “Men of Honor,” starring Cuba Gooding Jr.

Wally Schirra was of the original 7 Mercury astronauts profiled in the movie “The Right Stuff,” and holds the distinction of being the only astronaut to fly in each of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. USN PEO ships release.

Jan 31/08: T-AKE 10 ordered. General Dynamics, National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. (NASSCO) in San Diego, CA received a $459.8 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-02-C-2300), exercising an option for construction of T-AKE 10. See the July 20/07 entry, which involved $100 million in long-lead time items for T-AKE 10. This $459.8 million contract also includes technical manuals and data, special studies, analyses and reviews, engineering and industrial services, and an unspecified value of long lead time material for T-AKE 11 like engines et. al.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and construction of T-AKE 10 is scheduled to begin in January 2009, with delivery to the Navy’s Military Sealift Command (MSC) in Q4 2010. Construction of T-AKE 11 is scheduled to begin in the Q1 2010, with delivery in Q4 2011. GD release.

T-AKE 2 Sacagawea
and CG-53 Mobile Bay
(click to expand)

Dec 19/07: Cascade General Portland Shipyard in Portland, OR won a $9.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for a 70-day post shipyard availability (PSA) of Military Sealift Fleet Support Command’s dry cargo/ammunition ship USNS Alan Shepard [T-AKE 3] “to undergo a number of modifications that could not be economically accomplished under the ship construction contract.” NAVSEA PMS-325 provided funding for the alterations to be completed during the PSA, and the contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $10.8 million.

Work will be performed in Portland, OR and is expected to be complete by Apr. 2008. Contract funds in the amount of $10.8 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured, with 3 offers received by the U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Fleet Support Command, a field activity of Military Sealift Command in Washington, DC (N40442-08-C-3003).

Nov 14/07: T-AKE 4 delivered. General Dynamics NASSCO delivers USNS Richard E. Byrd [T-AKE 4] to the U.S. Navy. See May 15/07 entry for information about the ship’s namesake. In 2007, NASSCO delivered T-AKE 2 USNS Sacagawea in February, T-AKE 3 USNS Alan Shepard in June, and now USNS Richard E. Byrd. T-AKE 1 USNS Lewis and Clark was delivered in June 2006, and the 5th-8th ships of the class are currently under construction for deliveries through the third quarter of 2009.

General Dynamics NASSCO employs more than 4,600 people and is the only major ship construction yard on the West Coast of the United States. In addition to the T-AKE program, the San Diego shipyard is building the first of 9 commercial product carriers for U.S. Shipping Partners LP. GD release.

FY 2007

Aug 23/07: Multi-Year Deal for #9-14. GD NASSCO announces a multi-year agreement with the U.S. Navy for options to build up to 5 additional T-AKE dry cargo ammunition ships. Contracts for the ships, valued at approximately $2.5 billion if all options are exercised, and are expected to be awarded over the next 4 years. Including the 9 ships previously under contract, this agreement means the San Diego shipyard would build a total of 14 T-AKE ships for the Navy. GD release.

July 24/07: “The US Navy (USN) and General Dynamics’ subsidiary National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) are “very close in negotiations” to restructuring its T-AKE combat and logisitics support ships contract to buy two additional vessels, USN Deputy Assistant Secretary Allison Stiller told Jane’s…”

July 20/07: T-AKE 10 long-lead. A $100 million fixed-price-incentive modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-02-C-2300), exercising an option for long lead time material and associated labor for the 10th ship of the T-AKE Class (T-AKE 10). The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface, and material quality assurance for the ship’s engines and other components that have significant manufacturing lead times. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by September 2009.

A contract that funds full construction of the 10th T-AKE ship is expected to be awarded by January 2008. Construction of T-AKE 10 is expected to begin in the first quarter of 2009, with delivery scheduled for the first quarter of 2011. GD NASSCO release.

May 30/07: T-AKE 6 keel. General Dynamics NASSCO holds a keel-laying ceremony for T-AKE 6. A keel-laying ceremony is a shipbuilding tradition that signifies important milestone as full-scale production begins. In recognition of that milestone, event honoree, Darlene Costello, deputy director for Naval Warfare in the office of under secretary of defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, welded her initials into the keel.

The Amelia Earhart is scheduled to be delivered to the US Military Sealift Command (MSC) in the fall of 2008. GD release.

May 28/07: T-AKE 6 named. The US Navy declares that T-AKE 6 will be named USNS Amelia Earhart.

Amelia Earhart became a household name in 1932 when she became the 1st woman – and 2nd person – to fly solo across the Atlantic, flying from Harbor Grace, Newfoundland, to Londonderry, Ireland. That year, she received the Distinguished Flying Cross from the U.S. Congress, the Cross of Knight of the Legion of Honor from the French government, and the Gold Medal of the National Geographic Society from President Herbert Hoover. In January 1935, Earhart became the first person to fly solo “across” the Pacific Ocean from Honolulu to Oakland, CA. Later that year she soloed from Los Angeles to Mexico City and back to Newark, NJ. In a tragedy that cemented her legend, Earhart and her Lockheed 10E “Electra” vanished utterly in 1937, during an attempt at an around-the-world flight.

USNS Amelia Earhart will operate out of Guam when she is put into service. Hopefully, modern GPS technology will prevent her from joining her namesake in the South Pacific. US Navy Newsstand.

May 15/07: T-AKE 4 launched. The US Navy christens the USNS Richard E. Byrd. The launching ceremony was held at the General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding Company in San Diego, CA. Mrs. Bolling Byrd Clarke, Byrd’s oldest daughter and the ship’s sponsor, christened the ship by breaking the traditional bottle of champagne against its bow. GD release | a US Navy release describes the accomplishments of the ship’s namesake.

May 11/07: Infrastructure. Healy Tibbitts Builders, Inc. in Aiea, HI received a $12.6 million firm-fixed price Task Order 0016 under previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity multiple award construction contract (N62742-04-D-1300) to dredge West Loch Channel at Naval Magazine, Pearl Harbor, so it will accommodate a T-AKE vessel. Construction dredging in the West Loch Channel will provide access and berthing facilities at Wharves W1, W2, and W3 for the T-AKE vessel. The project will also undertake horizontal directional drilling construction of a water line under West Loch channel, and bank stabilization along the dredged/excavated shoreline along Baltimore Point by slope control.

Work will be performed in Pearl Harbor, HI and is expected to be complete by October 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii received 3 proposals for this task order.

May 10/07: House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) has announced that H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008, has been reported favorably by the committee on a vote of 58-0. The proposed bill includes $456 million for a second T-AKE ship in FY 2008, bringing the fleet to 12 – though this figure would not cover all of the internal systems etc. that must be added to make it operational. MarineLog report.

Dec 7/06: Detyens Shipyards Inc. in North Charleston, SC received a $6.45 million firm-fixed-price contract for a 90-calendar-day Post Shipyard Availability of Military Sealift Command’s dry cargo ammunition ship USNS Lewis & Clark [T-AKE 1]. The contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the total contract value to $8.4 million. Work will be performed in North Charleston, SC, and is expected to be completed within 90 calendar days from the commencement of the contract in February 2007. This contract was competitively procured with 2 offers received by US Navy Military Sealift Fleet Support Command, a field activity of US Military Sealift Command (N40442-07-C-3000).

Meanwhile, DID reader Lee R. Wahler wonders “whether the ship’s proper name is [USNS] Alan B. Shepard, Jr or the shortened version [USNS Alan Shepard] which the media types use?” For those unfamiliar with the distinction, the proper name is what ends up on the Certificate of Ownership.

FY 2001 – 2006

June 24/06: T-AKE 2 launched.The USNS Sacagawea [T-AKE 2] is christened and launched during a twilight ceremony at General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard in San Diego, CA. The ship is named for a Native American from the Lemhi Shoshone tribe; she served as guide and interpreter for the Lewis and Clark expedition.

July 28/06: T-AKE 4 and 5 named. The US Department of the Navy announces the naming of USNS Richard E. Byrd [T-AKE 4] for the famed Antarctic explorer. As an interesting sidenote, Byrd also led the first expedition to fly over the North Pole. USNS Robert E. Peary [T-AKE 5] is named for the famed Arctic explorer, who is credited as the first person to reach the geographic North Pole. US Navy.

Jan 30/06: T-AKE 9 ordered. A $317.1 million fixed-price-incentive modification for design and construction of the 9th T-AKE Dry Cargo/Ammunition Ship (of 12). Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by May 2009 (N00024-02-C-2300). GD NASSCO release.

Jan 11/05: T-AKE 7 & 8 ordered. A $586.3 million fixed-price-incentive option provides full funding of the detailed design and construction of the 7th and 8th T-AKE Dry Cargo/Ammunition Ships ($293.1 million per ship). Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be completed by May 1, 2008 for the 7th ship and July 31, 2008 for the 8th ship (N00024-02-C-2300).

Jan 27/04: T-AKE 5 & 6 ordered. A $578.2 million fixed-price-incentive modification provides full funding of the detailed design and construction of the 5th and 6th T-AKE Dry Cargo/Ammunition Ships ($289.1 million per ship). Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by July 2007 (N00024-02-C-2300).

July 18/03: T-AKE 4 ordered. A $287.6 million fixed-price-incentive modification exercises an option for design and construction of the 4th T-AKE Dry Cargo/Ammunition Ship. This contract will provide for the full funding of the detail design and construction of the fourth ship of the T-AKE Class. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by December 2006 (N00024-02-C-2300).

July 16/02: T-AKE 3 ordered. A $289.9 million fixed-price-incentive modification exercises an option for design and construction of the 3rd T-AKE Dry Cargo and Ammunition Ship. Work will be performed in San Diego and is to be complete by May 2006. NASSCO would later note that construction on the third T-AKE, to be named the USNS Alan Shepard in honor of the first American in space, began in September 2005.

Oct 18/01: T-AKE 1 & 2 ordered. A $406.9 million fixed-price-incentive (firm targets) contract for the detailed design and construction of the lead ship of the auxiliary cargo and ammunition ship class. T-AKE 1 would later be christened the USNS Lewis and Clark on May 21/05. The contract also provides for spare and repair parts, special studies and analyses, engineering and industrial services and technical data.

This original contract (N00024-02-C-2300) has 10 remaining options for follow-on ships, which would bring the total cumulative contract value to $3.75 billion.

Concurrent with this contract award, the US Navy exercises the 1st $301.6 million option for the detailed design and construction of the first follow-on ship: T-AKE 2 would be named USNS Sacagewea.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (75.7%); Iron Mountain, MI (9.3%); Waynesboro, VA (3.9%); Philadelphia, PA (3.5%); Beloit, WI. (3%); Belle Chasse, LA (1.8%); Kingsford, MI (1.8%); Scarborough, ME (0.5%); and Willis, TX (0.5%), and is expected to be complete by September 2005. This contract was competitively procured and advertised via the Commerce Business Daily and posted to the Naval Sea Systems Command web site. There were three offers received by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC.

Additional Readings & Sources

(DID thanks reader Lee Wahler for sharing his USNS expertise, and assisting with research for this article.)

Professional Mariner (Dec-Jan 2008) – Diesel-electric propulsion pushes ahead. Explains the benefits and characteristics of the diesel-electric propulsion system used on T-AKE ships. “All electric” ships are a larger naval trend.

As part of its spate of military modernization announcements issued just before Canada Day (July 1) 2006, the Canadian government issued an RFP that began the process of defining and building 3 “Joint Support Ships.” The aim was to deliver 3 multi-role vessels with substantially more capability than the current Protecteur Class oiler and resupply ships. In addition to being able to provide at-sea support (re-fueling and re-supply) to deployed naval task groups, the new JSS ships were envisioned as ships that would also be capable of sealift operations, as well as amphibious support to forces deployed ashore.

This was expected to be a C$ 2.9 billion (USD $2.58 billion) project. This article describes the process, the industry teams participating, and some of the issues swirling around Canada’s very ambitious specifications. Specifications that ultimately sank the whole project, twice, in a manner that was predictable from the outset. Leaving Canada’s navy with a serious problem, as its existing ships were forced into retirement. Will another go-round in 2012-13 help any? And what will Canada do in the meantime?

Take 2: Lessons, Process, and Contenders

Berlin Class
(click to view larger)

The 24,700t Canadian oiler and supply ships HMCS Protecteur (T-AOR-509, commissioned 1969), and HMCS Preserver (T-AOR-510, commissioned 1970) have contributed to humanitarian aid missions in Florida and the Bahamas, peace-making off Somalia and East Timor, and have been poised for the evacuation of non-combatants from Haiti, to name but a few of their recent endeavors. In the end, both HMCS Protecteur (fire) and HMCS Preserver (corrosion) were forced into “early” retirement in September 2014, after 45 and 44 years of respective service time.

Canada picked the 20,240t Berlin Class as its follow-on supply ships in June 2013, but hasn’t managed to issue a build contract. Current projections involve an expected cost of C$ 2.6 billion, for ships that Canada is unlikely to receive before 2020 at the earliest.

This outcome wasn’t necessary, but it was predictable. Meanwhile, interim leases of much larger 49,600t American ships are being considered as a bridge-buy option.

JSS Procurement Plan #1

Dutch JSS concept
(click to view full)

The ship’s requirements were unveiled in June 2006. they included the ability to carry liquid and bulk supplies, amphibious support roles, a hangar for multiple helicopters, and a strengthened hull for operations in ice. August 2008 saw the predictable demise of that JSS program (vid. Appendices A & B), but Canada’s Protecteur Class still faced all of the same issues with maintenance, and still had a limited lifespan left.

Canada’s DND was still thinking things over in January 2010 when the Dutch made a move of their own, ordering their own “Joint Logistic Support Ship” with specifications that closely matched Canada’s stated JSS needs and requirements.

Canada made no move. Its government remained stuck considering what it wanted to do, and JSS discussions became intertwined with a proposed national shipbuilding strategy that added more complexity and delay. Some countries like Australia have shifted toward a single preferred shipbuilder approach, in order to keep their defense shipbuilding industrial base alive despite limited orders. Regional politics make that a perilous option for any Canadian government, so in June 2010 Canada opted for a dual preferred shipbuilders approach. Their National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) would build their future combat ships in one shipyard, and their future support and non-combatant ships at a second location.

With that step out of the way, July 2010 saw the JSS program’s re-start announcement, this time at C$ 2.6 billion instead of $2.9 billion. With the Canadian dollar close to par with the US dollar, currency shifts made up some of that difference. The other difference involved cutting the planned order to just 2 ships instead of 3, after previous program experience showed that it wasn’t possible to buy 3 ships that do all of the things that Canada wanted, for the money it was prepared to spend.

JSS Procurement Plan #2

A15 Cantabria
(click to view larger)

October 2010 saw the final piece of the puzzle fall into place. A dysfunctional political and procurement system has led Canada’s government to use ACAN buys for big defense purchases, almost all of which have been organized as rigged sole-source decisions instead of competitions. The JSS program looked to pick one of 2 existing designs that were already in service with NATO allies.

The Dutch multi-role JSS, which isn’t in service yet, wasn’t one of the 2 choices.

Contender #1 was ThyssenKrupp Marine’s 20,240t Berlin Class, with 3 examples serving in the Germany Navy. These ships are mostly conventional oiler and replenishment ships, with storage for 9,330t of fuel oil, aviation fuel and fresh water, and 550t of mixed cargo. They can carry light armament and up to 2 medium helicopters, with an on-board hospital that can handle up to 43 patients.

While each of these ships has some minor capabilities beyond the basic fleet replenishment mission, the most striking thing about these choices is their signal that Canada had effectively abandoned its attempt to make the JSS a multi-role amphibious operations ship.

JSS Procurement Plan #3

TKMS concept
(click to view full)

Discussions were held with each firm concerning Canada-specific modifications to their designs, and the terms under which they’d be willing to hand over their designs to a designated Canadian shipbuilder. Those discussions reportedly didn’t go well, and other reports surfaced that BMT Fleet Technology of Kanata, ON near Ottawa might offer an design if those negotiations failed.

The report turned out to be true, and in March 2012, Canada gave design contracts to BMT and to TKMS. BMT would offer a custom JSS design for Canada, while TKMS would offer a modified version of the Berlin Class. Canada would pick a design between the 2 once the teams were done, arrange license production in Canada at Vancouver Shipyards per the NSPS selections, then contract with the shipyard.

Adding a new design that is not in service would vastly increase the program’s risks. On the other hand, their parent company has an Aegir family of ships that were designed from the outset to be built in “local country” shipyards, and will form the basis for the UK’s new MARS fleet tankers.

Canada’s conclusion? The entire competitive structure had been a waste of time. Implementation costs would be 15% less with an off-the-shelf design, so that was the only contender offering enough contingency funding for an executable project. TKMS’ modified Berlin Class was picked in June 2013, but construction isn’t expected to begin until at least “late 2016,” and delivery isn’t expected until 2020 at the earliest.

Supply Ship Cost Comparison: Canada vs. Britain

BMT’s MARS Tanker
(click to view full)

Canada isn’t the only country looking to reinvest in supply ships. As noted above, the Dutch are fielding a 28,000t multi-role supply and amphibious JSS support ship that’s similar to Canada’s original requirements, at a coat of around $500 million. Changing specifications in Canada have made that a poor comparison.

When it comes to simpler oiler/ supply vessels, Britain is a much better comparison. In 2002, Britain began a Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) program to replace 11 supply ships in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Their program also went through a great deal of internal turbulence, including a program split in 2007. In early 2012, however, the Royal Navy placed its first MARS contract for 4 double-hulled oiler ships, which would also have the ability to transport and transfer other supplies.

While the 20,240t Berlin Class would certainly qualify for this role, Britain ended up choosing the option Canada didn’t: BMT’s Aegir design, albeit in a larger 37,000t ship. This makes for a very interesting comparison, and Britain added one more major difference: their ships would be built abroad, because even the UK’s shipbuilding facilities weren’t deemed ready, or good value for money. Instead, they chose one of the world’s leading shipbuilders, with a commercial and military history of on-time, on-budget delivery: Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering in South Korea. The 1st ship, RFA Tidespring, is expected to enter service in 2016.

The cost differential is stunning.

Canada’s JSS program is budgeting C$ 2.6 billion for 2 ships of 20,240t each. Which means that each ship costs $1.3 billion. We’ll assume that rough parity with the US dollar continues throughout the project. We’ll also assume that the JSS project doesn’t end up with major cost overruns, even though this is a significant risk given Seaspan Vancouver’s lack of experience.

Britain’s 4 x 37,000t Tide Class MARS replenishment ships cost GBP 602 million total, or about $950 million equivalent. Which means that each ship costs $237.5 million. Their builder has a long record of solid performance, so this amount is fairly reliable.

The difference per ship = 5.47x, in order to build ships with just 2/3 the individual tonnage, and much greater risk of cost overruns or late arrival.

JSS: Contracts and Key Events

2019

April 9/19: Sea Giraffe for Protecteur Lockheed Martin contracted Saab to deliver Sea Giraffe AMB 3-D surveillance radars to the Royal Canadian Navy’s two new Protecteur Class Joint Support Ships. According to a press release by Saab, the Sea Giraffe AMB will form part of the command management system for the new ships. The Sea Giraffe Agile Multi Beam (AMB) is a C-band maritime 3D mid-range multifunction radar. The radar provides airspace reconnaissance and simultaneous target tracking, weapon system targeting and high-resolution navigation. The Sea Giraffe AMB has been optimized for use on the Swedish Visby Class corvettes and the Independence Class US Coast Guard. The AMB contains a number of independent elevation-angle antenna beams. Saab will perform work in Gothenburg, Sweden and Halifax, Canada with deliveries scheduled between 2020 and 2022.

2014

Sept 23/14: Rent a T-AOE? CBC reports that Canada is considering a lease of the 49,600t Supply Class fast combat support ship USNS Bridge [T-AOE-10], which was recently inactivated by the US Navy because it costs $75 million per year to keep it in operation.

Older oilers cost about $40 million, and the new T-AKE dry supply ships cost aout $50 million, but they limit the speed of any naval group using them to under 20 knots. Carrier Strike Group transits are often 20-24 knots, and 25-26 knots is not uncommon; the Supply Class are the ships that can keep up. USNS Rainier [T-AOE-7] is scheduled to be held in reserve for another year, but current plans would also remove her from the fleet, over strenuous objections from fleet commanders.

A Canadian lease could help solve the US Navy’s problem by transferring the operating costs, while helping Canada at the same time. For the USA, the question is whether to give up control over the ships’ future usage, such as it is. If they believe the Canadians will send their T-AOEs and frigates to accompany US Navy strike groups often enough, it could still be a net plus. For the Canadians, the size difference is a big deal, because it affects required infrastructure. The USD $75 million per year operating cost could also be an issue to a military that may not have enough funds for operations under planned budgets. The good news is that crewing won’t be a big problem, since the 1960s-era Protecteur Class required almost twice as many crew as the late-1990s era Supply Class do. Sources: CASR, “The JSS Project: Delays, delivery dates, urgency, and alternatives” | CBC, “Canada’s navy looks to fill fleet gap with purchase from U.S.” | Defense News, “Canada To Seek NATO, US Support For Naval Air Defense, Resupply” | Defense News “Big Supply Ships May Get Reprieve – For Now” (July 2014).

Sept 19/14: Retired. Both HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur are forced into retirement. HMCS Protecteur has never recovered from its engine fire (q.v. Feb 27/14) and collision with the destroyer HMCS Algonquin (q.v. Aug 31/13), which will also be scrapped. HMCS Preserver was found to have serious corrosion problems, and the destroyer HMCS Iroquois was scheduled for retirement in 2015 anyway, after 43 years of service.

Feb 28/14: Fire. As if its recent crash wasn’t bad enough (q.v. Aug 31/13), HMCS Protecteur suffers an engine room fire en route to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. She is taken under tow by the American destroyer USS Chosin, but the tow line breaks in rough seas. HMCS Protecteur is eventually towed into Pearl Harbor on March 6/14 by the fleet ocean tug USNS Sioux [T-ATF 171].

About 20 crew suffered minor injuries, but the damage to the ship is more serious. the engine room and propulsion control machinery is badly damaged, and there’s fire and smoke damage to adjoining compartments. Some doubt the ship will ever sail again, and she has to be towed back to Canada after the damage assessment is complete. Sources: CBC, “Line towing fire-damaged HMCS Protecteur to Hawaii breaks” | CBC, “HMCS Protecteur towed into Pearl Harbor” | US Navy, “HMCS Protecteur, Crew Arrive Safely to Pearl Harbor” | CBC, “HMCS Protecteur too badly damaged to sail home on her own”.

Oct 11/13: More delays. There isn’t even a contract for the JSS ships yet, and the government is already admitting to reporters that Canada’s existing supply ships will need to be retired before the new Berlin Class variants can enter service over the 2019-2020 time frame. This is a new admission, and it’s so even though the polar icebreaker project will be deferred in JSS’ favor.

Senior officials are already talking about a service gap of “at least 18 months,” without even a contract in place to offer an notional end date. Shipbuilding isn’t even expected to start before “late 2016,” despite the use of a licensed design as the base Meanwhile, making JSS the yard’s first major military shipbuilding project sharply raises the odds of industrial mistakes and rework, cost overruns, and schedule failures.

Any delays will have costs and implications beyond even the JSS project, because Seaspan Vancouver doesn’t have the capacity to run both projects in parallel. Meanwhile, CGCS Louis St. Laurent will need at least $55 million in refits in order to keep operating until 2021 – 2022. Further JSS delays would force Canada to either spend more, or to field a navy with no supply ships and no icebreaker. Sources: Canadian government, “National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy Secretariat announces Vancouver Shipyards to build the Joint Support Ships in 2016” | CBC, “Arctic icebreaker delayed as Tories prioritize supply ships” | Postmedia, “Shipbuilding schedule conflict to cost taxpayers extra $55 million”.

Aug 31/13: Crash. HMCS Protecteur collides with the Tribal Class destroyer HMCS Algonquin during a west coast training exercise. The towing exercise certainly went “dramatically wrong”, but that’s almost a tangential point. Until the damage is fixed, Canada’s Pacific Fleet has no replenishment ship – a situation that can be repeated at any time with JSS, given that there are only 2 ships planned.

The same amount of money could build 4 or more similar ships abroad, as countries like Britain have done. The difference illustrates the non-monetary cost of Canada’s chosen approach. The Globe and Mail, “Canadian Pacific navy fleet severely hampered without damaged ships.”

Collision

June 2-10/13: Calling Berlin. Canada chooses ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems’ “proven, off-the-shelf” design, based on the German Navy’s double-hulled Berlin Class Einsatzgruppenversorger (EGV – Task Force Support Ship), over a variant of BMT Fleet Technology’s Aegir that was picked as the base for Britain’s forthcoming Tide Class support tankers.

It wasn’t a features contest. Ultimately, TKMS won because Canada believed that implementation costs would be 15% less with an off-the-shelf design, so that was the only contender offering enough contingency funding for an executable project. First Marine International was used to validate construction cost estimates.

The TKMS design can carry 2 CH-148 (S-92) medium helicopters, and has less fuel capacity than the Protecteur Class, but useable fuel is closer. It seems that the Protecteurs can’t transfer their full payload without creating stability challenges, and their single-hull design’s days are numbered by maritime rules. ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems designs show a pair of MK-15 Phalanx systems mounted for defense, 1 forward and 1 aft.

TKMS will prepare the detailed design package for Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd to review in preparation for actual production, and part of that process will involve definition contract negotiations between Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. and the Canadian government. Once these steps are complete, Canada will acquire the license for the ship design, allowing in-country production and support. Canada DND | Canada DND added background | Navy Recognition | TKMS concept: ship 3-view.

TKMS Berlin Class picked

Feb 22/13: The Canadian government offers a C$ 15.7 million trickle of contracts to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyard, in British Columbia. The money will be used to assess the Joint Support Ship design options, review the future CCGS John G. Diefenbaker polar icebreaker’s design, refine the design and specifications for the offshore fisheries science vessel, and produce plans for construction, material, subcontractors and labor. STX Marine is acting as the shipyard’s design partner. Public Works Canada | Seaspan Shipyards [PDF] | MarineLog.

Seaspan study contracts

Feb 13/13: JSS & inflation. Opposition parties draw attention to the 2.7% inflation rate being used to cost the “C$ 2.6 billion” Joint Support Ship project, and to an internal DND audit that cites 3.5% – 5.0% as the norm for the shipbuilding industry. American defense planners have been known to use even higher figures. Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose defends the estimate as coming from their usual process, but doesn’t explain the deviation from industry norms.

Over the course of a long project, the difference can add up to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Which means either higher defense spending, cuts to the project, or cancellation of other projects. Higher defense spending is unlikely any time soon, and it’s hard to cut a 2-ship project. The situation could become even worse if other NSPS projects pick up the same flawed estimate, but the inflation rate issue is likely to surface again later in 2013, when the Parliamentary Budget Office tables their report on the JSS program. Canada.com

“National Defence reported late last year that biggest challenge facing the navy in 2012 was when its two support ships, the HMCS Protecteur and Preserver, went into maintenance at the same time…. because of their absence in late 2011 and early 2012, the navy was forced to turn to allies for help replenishing other Canadian vessels at sea until the re-supply ships came back online.”

Both oilers down

2010 – 2012

Canada launches 2nd JSS attempt, which sinks. Try plan #3?

HMCS Preserver
(click to view full)

Dec 6/12: PBO denied. Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page is denied when he asks to see the winning NSPS shipyard bids, as part of a study examining the financial implications of the Joint Support Ship, and a similar effort focused on Canada’s project to build Arctic patrol vessels. From Canada.com:

“Public Works has provided PBO with some information related to the national shipbuilding strategy, including a number of agreements and reports related to Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards for the resupply ship study…. In a letter to Page dated Dec. 3, d’Auray indicated the winning bids were not relevant to the PBO study because they “do not stipulate awarding contracts, and the bidders were not asked to submit cost estimates for any of the vessels.”

Oct 19/12: Infrastructure. Part of the NSPS involved meeting a “target state” level of efficiency, as set by First Marine International standards. The ability to reach this state, and to finance the required upgrades, was an important part of the bidding process. Along those lines, Vancouver Shipyards holds a ground breaking ceremony as part of their C$ 200 million infrastructure investment: 4 new fabrication buildings, a shipbuilding gantry crane, and a load out pier.

While the government touts the investment as having “no cost to Canada,” Costs will be passed through one way or another. Especially when the shipyards in question are now sole-source bidders. The more likely result is that they’ll soak the provincial government for most of the funds, as their east coast counterparts at Irving did. Government of Canada

March 8-12/12: JSS Plan #3. Canada has moved forward with a new JSS approach, awarding relatively small design contracts for a custom JSS design from BMT, and a modified off-the-shelf Berlin Class design. Canada intends to pick a winner, and then license the design for construction in Canada.

BMT Fleet, who designed Britain’s new 37,000t MARS fleet tankers and supply ships, is awarded a 12-month, C$ 9.8 million design project to further develop their Contract Design as a JSS option. They have already done a JSS Preliminary Design under earlier contracts, and have been supporting the JSS project since December 2002 through a series of individual taskings issued under an Engineering, Logistics, and Management Support (ELMS) Services Contract. These have included a broad range of engineering and design studies.

At the same time, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems has won an undisclosed contract to modify their Berlin Class Task Group Supply Vessel (EGV) to meet Canadian requirements. The modified design will be developed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada (TKMSC) and TKMS subsidiary Blohm + Voss Naval. If the modified Berlin Class EGV design is chosen, it would be followed by a functional design contract, and those designs would be licensed for construction by a Canadian shipyard. This design contract includes initial provisions for a licensing agreement to that effect. Blohm + Voss | BMT Fleet.

New JSS approach, initial design contracts

Nov 4/11: HMCS Preserver crash. As it prepares to return to service following a C$ 44.7 million refit, HMCS Preserver hits the floating drydock at Irving’s shipyard in Halifax, NS. The drydock now has a hole, and the ship’s hull is reportedly dented above the water line.

The incident underscores the vulnerability of Canada’s fleet to problems with existing supply ships, and the importance of the future JSS. Until HMCS Preserver is returned to service, HMCS Protecteur will remain Canada’s only supply ship. Which it did – until it had to go in for repairs in 2012, leaving Canada with nothing. CBC | Global TV News | Ottawa Citizen’s Defence Watch.

“Defence sources said it is in trouble because two companies competing to design the new ships – ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems of Germany and Navantia S.A. of Spain – are backing away from the bidding process. It is understood that the government is not prepared to pay their asking price and is likely to turn to a domestic Canadian design being prepared by engineering support contractor BMT Fleet Technology of Kanata, Ont. None of the competing companies responded to requests for comment Tuesday… One Defence insider said the JSS problems reflect a lack of experienced procurement staff. “This is so depressingly Canadian – you go out to bidders, you indicate an interest in designs, you load on extras and then say ‘no, thank you.’ It could set us back another five years,” he said. The new supply ships were due to be in service by 2017 but sources say that deadline is unlikely to be met now.”

Bidders not playing

Oct 19/11: NSPS. Tim Colton’s Maritime Memos was right, it took just over a year from Canada’s government to announce the obvious. In their partial defense, there was a May 2011 election in between, and at least they didn’t pick an obviously disastrous political choice for the 20-30 year, C$ 33 billion program.

On the west coast, Seaspan subsidiary Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd. in North Vancouver, BC wins the C$ 8 billion non-combat portion. They will build the 2-3 Berlin or Cantabria derivative JSS support ships, 4 off-shore science vessels for the Coast Guard, and a new polar icebreaker, for a total of 7-8 ships, worth about C$ 8 billion. Despite the JSS’ long-running competition, and the fleet’s need, the 3 off-shore fisheries and 1 oceanographic science vessels will be the first ships built. Other team members include and Alion Canada (design), CSC (logistics), Imtech Marine (ship systems), STX Canada Marine (design), and Thales Canada (ship systems).

There are 2 caveats worth noting. One is that the projects will involve 100% value industrial offsets, which matters because many ship systems and components, especially combat-related equipment, will come from outside Canada. The other is that the government can take over the shipbuilder if it signs up for NSPS, and then defaults on contractual obligations (vid. Part 3, Section 5.2). Read “Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy” for full coverage.

NSPS shipyards designated

Oct 8/10: NSPS. Public Works Canada announces the results of their initial shipbuilding strategy Solicitation of Interest and Qualification. One yard will be selected to build combat vessels, while a 2nd yard will build non-combat vessels. Five Canadian shipyards have been short-listed. Read “Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy” for full coverage.

Oct 8/10: RFI. Canada’s MERX government procurement board posts solicitation W8472-115312/A. It says the government has approved a new approach, restricted to “adapting the designs of recently built naval fleet replenishment ships that are operating with other NATO Navies.”

It then narrows the contenders down to ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems’ Berlin Class, and Navantia S.A.’s Cantabria Class. The process will begin by ordering risk reduction studies to cover adapting these designs to meet Canadian requirements, provide historical costs of building, and deliver a proposal that includes a data package and technology transfer agreement so a Canadian shipyard can build and support the ships. If one of these designs is selected for the JSS, Canada will amend the contract with that designer to implement its proposal.

RFI for v2.0

July 14/10: JSS, Take 2. Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) issues background materials concerning a second attempt at the JSS project. Specifications are very, very thin. The second go-round is listed as a C$ 2.6 billion project, though currency strength would offset some of the $300 million reduction. So would the revised plan of buying 2 ships, with an option for a 3rd.

Canada’s proposed shipbuilding strategy fits into the plan, but a construction bid can’t be expected before 2012 at the earliest. The mission description is close to meaningless, and will remain so until tradeoffs are specified among these capabilities, and exact requirements become clearer:

“The primary role of the JSS will include supply of fuel, ammunition, spare parts, food, and water. The JSS will also provide a home base for the maintenance and operation of helicopters, a limited sealift capability, and logistics support to forces deployed ashore… the [current] definition phase, will involve the assessment of both new and existing designs. Existing ship designs are those already built, operating, and meet key specific Canadian requirements. A new ship design is being developed by government and industry officials working side-by-side… The design is expected to be available in approximately two years, at which time a Canadian shipyard, selected as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, will be engaged to complete the design of and build the Joint Support Ships.”

“Two shipyards will be selected to build the large vessels (1000 tonnes displacement or more)… process, led by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)… will result in the signing of formal agreements establishing a long-term relationship between each yard and the Government of Canada. The negotiation and signing of umbrella agreements with the successful shipyards is expected to occur in the 2011-2012 timeframe.

One shipyard will be selected to build combat vessels. This will enable the procurement of the Canadian Surface Combatant [CSC frigate/destroyer replacement] and Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS)… Another competitively selected shipyard will build non-combat vessels, such as the Joint Support Ships (JSS)… Shipyards among those not selected for the building of large vessels may be engaged in the building and support (maintenance, refit, and repair) of the approximately 100 smaller vessels included within the strategy. Maintenance, refit, and repair of the Navy’s fleet represent some [C$] 500 million annually.”

Now it has to start picking winners, and approving programs. Major ministry participants include Defense, Public Works, and Fisheries & Oceans. Plus Industry Canada. Not a recipe for speed. DND release | Public Works | Coast Guard.

“Maintaining the obsolescent tankers is costly and will put further pressure on the already constrained [repair budget] and further delays in the mid-life refit for Halifax class [frigates] which will lead to rust-out…”

“Rust-out” is caused by repeatedly sanding warships, which leads to hulls becoming thinner and more fragile. CBC News quotes Liberal Party (official opposition) Senator Colin Kenny, who chairs the Senate’s standing defence committee, is highly critical of the program, which was begun under one of his own party’s governments:

“The navy only asked for three [ships] when it knew it needed four,” he told CBC News. “But the costs have come in that there’s only enough money for two. And if Mr. MacKay thinks things are on track, he really doesn’t know what’s happening.”

“After receiving and evaluating the mandatory requirements for the Joint Support Ship Project from the bidders, the Crown has determined that the proposals were not compliant with the basic terms of the Request for Proposals (RFP). Among other compliance failures, both bids were significantly over the established budget provisions… The Department of National Defence and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are currently considering the next steps. The government is committed to procure, repair and refit vessels in Canada according to the government’s Buy Canada policy.”

The Hill Times was blunt, as it offered more background details:

“According to industry insiders, both design teams were unable to come up with a ship design under-budget. Although details are tight, officials say one team submitted a blueprint for two vessels [instead of 3], while the other sent in a plan for three, which was way over budget. In other words, industry has sent a strong signal to Ottawa – either increase the funding or scale down the project.”

The government’s decision left the Canadian navy’s future ability to operate independently at risk. HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur were expected to reach the end of their service life between 2010- 2012, but the failure of the JSS concept means that it will be very difficult to build replacement ships before that date. Meanwhile, HMCS Preserver is headed into dock to have its boiler system repaired, just 2 years after the last repair. Those systems are an ongoing risk, as the Canadian Press explains:

“An undated briefing note, leaked to The Canadian Press over the weekend, show the navy was bracing for the blow… “If the Protecteur and Preserver are going to be needed longer than expected, we will also determine what needs to be done to keep our supply ships safe, operational and available until they can be replaced… Many of their systems are nearly obsolete, such as the boilers they use to generate steam for main propulsion. As you might expect, it’s becoming increasingly difficult and costly to maintain these ships. Spare parts are no longer readily available, and the skills needed to operate and maintain systems that were already mature in the 1960s are becoming increasingly rare.”… Beyond basic mechanics, marine engineering designs and environmental laws have become more complex over the last 40 years. The navy’s two supply ships are single hull designs…”

Aug 3/08:The National Post reports that discussions have begun with Dutch shipbuilders, in the wake of serious problems with the JSS bid. The Netherlands builds the highly-regarded Rotterdam Class LSDs – but political friction is building around the prospect of contracting for shipbuilding outside Canada. Even though…

“This year, the federal government determined that proposals from two Canadian consortiums earmarked to build the new fleet were “noncompliant.” Defence officials were told the Joint Support Ship budget was not enough to build the three vessels envisioned and attempts to obtain more funding from the government have been unsuccessful.”

See Apendix A, which discusses why this outcome could have been, and was, predicted long in advance. Meanwhile, Conservative Party Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s press secretary Jay Paxton is attempting to douse the flames of controversy regarding the Netherlands visit:

“Although the director-general of major project delivery land and sea was in Europe on other business, he had a chance to meet with government representatives from the Netherlands who are undertaking a similar project and they compared best practices in the context of an update on their project.”

“The $2.1 billion set aside for buying three Joint Support Ships is not enough, defence officials confirm. They point out that part of the problem is the new vessels would conduct missions far beyond the scope of re-supplying warships at sea, the role now done by the decades-old Protecteur-class ships… There is no similar type of ship in the world, as most navies use two types of vessels to perform the distinct roles.

Defence officials have heard from industry that the money set aside by the government might be enough for two ships, not three.”

Nov 24/06: Phase 2 contracts. The Phase 2 Project Definition contracts have been awarded. Teams led by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc. and SNC-Lavalin ProFac Inc. were selected, receiving identical contract of C$ 12.5 million (US$ 11 million). Irving Shipbuilding and BAE were eliminated. Each team will now have 14 months to develop a preliminary system specification, and a proposal for project implementation. A winner will be selected in 2008, and delivery of the first ship is planned for 2012. See MarineLog report.

Phase 2 definition contracts

June 26/06: JSS announced. Liberal Party Minister of National Defence Gordon O’Connor, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Michael Fortier and Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier announce the C$ 2.9 billion Joint Support Ship project for Canada’s Navy. This project includes a base cost of C$ 2.1 billion, plus an estimated C$ 800 million in contracted in-service support over 20 years. DND Backgrounder | DND Release.

Joint Support Ship program announced

Appendix A: The JSS v1.0 Procurement Process

JSS concept
(click to view larger)

Here’s how the three-step process announced by Paul Martin’s Liberal Party government in 2006 was expected to work:

Four industry teams were pre-qualified to compete for the contract. A request for proposals, to be issued shortly, will trigger the process to select two industry teams for the project definition phase.

The second phase, Project Definition, would see 2 qualified consortia selected from among the qualifying proposals. These two consortia will each be awarded a C$ 12.5 million contract to produce and deliver an implementation proposal consisting of a preliminary ship design, a project implementation plan, and an in-service support plan. These proposals will be evaluated on the basis of compliance and the proposal demonstrating the best value, taking into consideration technical merit and total ownership cost, will be selected as the winner.

The final phase, Project Implementation, will see the winning bidder awarded two separate but inter-related contracts. The first will be for the completed design for and construction of the Joint Support Ships. The second will be for the in-service support for the life of the vessels. Delivery of the first ship is targeted for 2012.

The expected overall project cost for the JSS includes a base cost of C$ 2.1 billion (USD $1.87 billion), plus an estimated C$ 800 million (USD $712 million) in contracted in-service support over 20 years. Industry teams were led by:

Irving Shipbuilding

BAE Systems (Project) Limited (BAE Systems Naval Ships)

ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG

SNC-Lavalin Profac Inc.

A list of the required capabilities could be found in the Canadian government’s detailed 2006 release. Supply functions, medical care, repair facilities, self-defense, roll-on roll-off, lift-on lift-off helicopter operation, ice capabilities, deck space for vehicles… the list goes on. All in a 200m/ 28,000t ship:

The provision at sea of fuel, food, spare parts, and ammunition. Goal is to enable a Naval Task Group to remain at sea for up to 6 times longer than would be possible without these ships;

Afloat support to Canadian forces deployed on shore;

The ability to navigate in first-year arctic ice up to 0.7 m thick;

20 knots sustained speed;

A covered multi-purpose deck space for vehicles and containers with space for additional containers on the upper decks. Total of 1,000 – 1,500 lane meters desired on upper and lower decks;

The operation of 3-4 maritime helicopters per ship, with rapid reconfiguration possible should the ship wish, for example, to use its hangars for evacuated disaster survivors;

Roll-on Roll-off (RO-RO) of cargo;

Lift-on Lift-off (LO-LO) of cargo.

Other capabilities would include:

The ability to function as a Joint Task Force HQ

Work and living space for additional personnel, over and above the standard crew of up to 165 people;

Modern medical and dental care facilities, including an operating room for urgently needed operations;

Repair facilities and technical expertise to keep aircraft and other equipment functioning; and

The ship will be configured with both active and passive self-defence systems

The new Conservative Party government kept the JSS program, and followed the competition procedure to narrow the contest down to just 2 bidders: ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG, and SNC-Lavalin Profac Inc.

In the end, however, the specifications, design, and budget simply could not be made to agree. The JSS project is currently in limbo. A solution is required, and soon, but successfully executing one demanded a rethink of the project’s main premises.

Surprisingly, the project got exactly that. The next iteration featured an overarching national shipbuilding strategy, and a specification set that scrapped the multi-role requirement in favor of a slightly-modified variant of a serving NATO support vessel.

Appendix B: DID Op-ed/Analysis (June 30, 2006)

HMAS Collins launch
(click for alternate view)

Candidly, the record for small to mid-size powers attempting to develop new military technologies is not all that good. Engineering is a challenging art at the best of times, and military projects are more demanding than most because of the myriad of parts to integrate and the advanced (and hence often new and unproven) nature of the technologies. Add local unfamiliarity into the mix, and the result is inevitably schedule slips and cost overruns – often significant slips, and major cost overruns.

Given the limited procurement resources of small to medium powers, such projects can easily threaten to swallow entire service procurement budgets. Cancellation means millions or even billions of dollars has been flushed down the toilet. On the other hand, continuing the program may break one’s military as other areas are starved to pay for it – all with no guarantee of success.

Australia’s Collins Class subs, for instance, are excellent vehicles. Yet cost overruns have measured in the hundreds of millions, remediation is not yet finished, and the schedule for full deployment has slipped by years. All for vessels of a well-understood ship type, based in part on a pre-existing class (Sweden’s Gotland Class), and built in cooperation with an experienced, world-leading firm in submarine technology.

Overall, the Collins Class is an example of a successful local to medium power project to develop an advanced military platform despite previous inexperience.

Canada’s Joint Support Ships, in contrast, conform to no known ship type in their breadth of required functions, and are based on no pre-existing class. The firms competing for the design are not world leaders in similar ship classes like amphibious assault ships or LPDs. Nor does the depth of Canadian design and build experience in related efforts give cause for optimism; quite the reverse. Indeed, the JSS’ breadth of functions alone suggests a difficult project for any entity or country to undertake, and little hope of much beyond mediocrity in all functions due to the required trade-offs.

The Canadian Forces may succeed in the end, and if DID would be happy to apologize. Indeed, we would be pleased to run an article here explaining why they believe they can succeed, and what steps they have taken to address their approach’s inherent risks and performance trade-offs.

For the project’s critics appear to have the high ground when they suggest that JSS is set up to become a budget-eating failure, and recommend that Canada replace the unwieldy JSS idea with a conventional oiler or two plus a few HSV rapid deployment vessels like the ones the USA is gravitating toward. Or recommend the LPD-17 San Antonio Class amphibious support ship as an alternative. Or even recommend a larger number of smaller Dutch/Spanish Rotterdam Class LPDs, plus the USA’s versatile new T-AKE supply ships.

Those kinds of risk reduction strategies would leverage successful R&D efforts, and spend more money on cutting steel and floating boats. As opposed to pursuing paper visions that risk sucking up vast resources and producing inferior products – or no products as all.

DID Dutch Order Multi-Purpose Support Ship. A 28,000t JSS, similar to Canada’s original multi-role conception, and ordered in 2010. The Netherlands was going to sell it on completion, but decided that it was too valuable; HNLMS Karel Doornan is expected to be commissioned in 2015, at a cost of around $500 million.

New Zealand Navy – HMNZS Canterbury – L421. New Zealand has its own, smaller multi-role ship design, which combines transport and some minor patrol tasks. The vessel was built by Merwede Shipyard in the Netherlands, under subcontract to Tenix. Unfortunately, it has stability issues.

When moving whole units, shipping is always the cheaper, higher-capacity option. Slow speed and port access are the big issues, but what if ship transit times could be cut sharply, and full-service ports weren’t necessary? After Australia led the way by using what amounted to fast car ferries for military operations, the US Army and Navy decided to give it a go. Both services leased Incat TSV/HSV wave-piercing catamaran ship designs, while the Marines’ charged ahead with very successful use of Austal’s Westpac Express high-speed catamaran. These Australian-designed ships all give commanders the ability to roll on a company with full gear and equipment (or roll on a full infantry battalion if used only as a troop transport), haul it intra-theater distances at 38 knots, then move their shallow draft safely into austere ports to roll them off.

Their successful use, and continued success on operations, attracted favorable comment and notice from all services. So favorable that the experiments have led to a $3+ billion program called the Joint High Speed Vessel. These designs may even have uses beyond simple ferrying and transport.

The JHSV Ships

Austal concept
(click to view full)

The design specifications established for the JHSV described an ocean-going vessel 450 feet in length or less, capable of carrying 600 short tons of cargo up to 1,200 nautical miles at a speed of 35 knots. It must also have seats for at least 312 passengers, and must be able to provide long-term berthing and galley facilities for at least 104 of those passengers in addition to the vessel’s 41 crew.

A single firm was ultimately selected to produce all planned JHSV ships, and Austal beat their rival Incat for the contract. Austal’s design ventured slightly beyond the program’s specifications. Length is just 103.0m/ 337.9 ft, with a Beam of 28.5m/ 93.5 ft, and a miniscule Draught of just 3.83m/ 12.57 ft.

The ship’s 4 Wartsalia WLD-1400-SR waterjets are powered by the same MTU 8000 class diesel engines used on Austal’s Independence Class Littoral Combat Ship, and the Hawaii Superferries. Specifically, JHSVs use 4 MTU 20V8000 M71Ls, rated at a maximum of 9.1 MW each. These engines and waterjets can push the ships to the required 35 knots at full cargo load, or 43 knots unloaded.

Austal’s design offers embarked troop berthing for 150 (104 permanent, 46 temporary) that can support 14 days of operations. Alternatively, airline-style seating for 354 troops, in addition to the crew of 41, allows the ship to support 96 hours of operations. Cargo capacity is up to 700 short tons/ 635 metric tons, in a usable cargo area 1863 m2/ 20,053 ft2, with a clear height of 4.75m and a turning diameter of 26.21m. The cargo area also has 6 ISO TEU (20′ ISO container) interface panels, for containers that need power. The Austere Loading Ramp Arrangement can support vehicles up to 70 ton M1A2 Abrams tanks, per requirements, and a telescoping boom crane can lift 18.2 metric tons at 10m, dropping to 12.3 metric tons at 15m.

The ship is required to be able to transport 600 short tons of troops, supplies, and equipment 1,200 nautical miles at an average speed of 35 knots, through wave height of up to 4 feet. It won’t quite manage that, in part because its 12.5 short tons overweight. Required range will also suffer a bit at 23 knots cruise speed (4,018 nmi vs. 4,700 nmi).

The JHSV’s flight deck can support all current Navy helicopters up to and including the Marines’ current med/heavy CH-53E Super Stallion, and Vertical Replenishment has been tested using a tilt-rotor MV-22 Osprey. Flight operations will be handled by Kongsberg Maritime’s night-capable Helicopter Operations Surveillance System (HOSS).

“[JHSV] will be capable of transporting Army and Marine Corps company-sized units with their vehicles, or reconfigure to become a troop transport for an infantry battalion. Its 35-45 nautical miles per hour speed allows for rapid deployment and maneuver of conventional or special operations forces.

The JHSV will not be a combatant vessel. Its construction will be similar to high-speed commercial ferries used around the world, and the design will include a flight deck and an off-load ramp which can be lowered on a pier or quay wall – allowing vehicles to quickly drive off the ship.

JHSV testing

JHSV’s shallow draft will allow it access to small austere ports common in developing countries. This makes the JHSV an extremely flexible asset ideal for three types of missions: support of relief operations in small or damaged ports; as a flexible logistics support vessel for the Joint Commander; or as the key enabler for rapid transport of a Marine Light Armored Reconnaissance Company or an Army Stryker unit.”

It has taken time, but the US military is beginning to expand its thinking beyond these obvious applications, and begin thinking about ways to employ the JHSV’s vast internal space and mobility in front-line missions. The most dramatic example may involve mounting a 32MJ railgun on USNS Millinocket [JHSV 3] in 2016.

The JHSV Program

Incat JHSV concept – lost
(click to view full)

The Joint High Speed Vessel’s Initial Capability Document received approval from the Department of Defense Joint Requirements Oversight Council on Nov 1/05, with all 4 military services concurring. The initial goal was 5 Army vessels, and 3 Navy vessels, for a program worth about $1.6 billion, but the Navy’s interest has continued to grow. The contract signed in November 2008 called for up to 10 ships, split evenly between the Army and Navy. An initial Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) allowed the U.S. Navy to use its surface ship acquisition expertise to buy these vessels on the Army’s behalf, with Army participation – until program changes moved all of these ships to the Navy’s procurement budget and operation.

All of the JHSVs were then transferred to Maritime Sealift Command under a May 2011 agreement. The first 4 / 10 projected vessels will be crewed by civil service mariners. JHSV 5-10 are slated to be crewed by contracted civilian mariners working for a private company. Military mission personnel will embark with either set, as required by mission sponsors. The goal was for JHSV to achieve Initial Operational Capability in 2012, and JHSV 1 just made it.

All ordered JHSV ships have been named now, and ships with the USNS listing have been delivered to US Military Sealift Command:

JHSV 1 USNS Spearhead (has deployed)

JHSV 2 USNS Choctaw County (accepted)

JHSV 3 USNS Millinocket

JHSV 4 USNS Fall River

JHSV 5 Trenton Resolute

JHSV 6 Brunswick

JHSV 7 Carson City Courageous

JHSV 8 Yuma

JHSV 9 Bismarck (North Dakota, not Otto von) Sacrifice

JHSV 10 Burlington

HSV USNS Guam (ex-Huakai)

HSV USNS Puerto Rico (ex-Alakai)

The Pentagon’s April 2011 Selected Acquisition Report placed the program at 18 ships, and its total cost at about $FY08 3.5 billion. That changed as FY 2013 budget plans cut all ships beyond the 10 in the current contract, and the US Navy is negotiating over cancellation of its JHSV 10 contract due to sequestration cuts. Annual budgets to date have included:

Note that advance materials purchases for future years are included in each year’s procurement budgets. After FY 2013, JHSV budgets are very small, reflecting only minor post-shakedown work.

Supplements: From Leased to Bought

Hawaii Superferry
(click to view full)

At present, 1 leased vessel remains in military service, following the end of Incat’s HSV-2 Swift lease. Austal’s HSV 4676 Westpac Express catamaran continues to serve in Military Sealift Command in the Pacific around Guam and Japan, working closely with the Marine Corps as a troop and cargo transport.

HSV-2 Swift’s influence lives on in the JHSV concept of operations. The ship had supported relief operations in Indonesia post-tsunami, and in the Gulf Coast region following hurricane Katrina. In both cases, Swift’s high speed and shallow draft combined to make it an ideal platform for the delivery of relief supplies and support of other platforms operating in the area. During operations following Katrina, Swift was able to use ports that were inaccessible to other ships of the logistics force. It has also been a platform for UAV and aerostat experiments.

It’s likely that both charters will soon be replaced, thanks to a recently-purchased alternative with many similarities to the JHSV.

After its ferry service was forced into bankruptcy by environmental lawfare, the Hawaii Superferries Huakai and Alakai were pressed into service by their main creditor: the US Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD). They were called into service in the wake of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and these Austal-built ships were very successful in that role. Both ferries were ultimately bought by the US Navy in 2011, for just $35 million. Once their $35 million conversions are done, they’re likely to replace Westpac Express and Swift as USNS Guam (ex-Huakai) and USNS Puerto Rico (ex-Alakai, slightly smaller). The superferries will offer more troop-carrying berths than their similar JHSV counterparts, in exchange for less military flexibility.

USNS Guam is expected to relieve Westpac Express in the Pacific some time in FY 2015.

Contracts & Key Events

FY 2014-2019

March 27/19: EPF 13 and 14 The US Navy awarded Austal USA a $261.8 million contract modification for two additional Expeditionary Fast Transport Ships (EPFs). The modification provides for design and construction and will also definitize the long-lead-time material undefinitized contract actions for EPF 13 and 14. Australian Shipbuilder Austal builds EPF ships in support of the EPF program by the Navy. The 14-ship EPF program has been worth over $2 billion. According to the DOD, the EPF class provides high-speed, shallow-draft transportation capability to support the intra-theater maneuver of personnel, supplies and equipment for the US Navy, Marine Corps, and Army. The vessels are to join coalition force operations of the Army and Navy. The Spearhead-Class EPF ships’ main roles include transportation of troops, military vehicles, cargo and equipment for a range of global missions. They will also support military logistics and humanitarian relief operations. The construction of EPF 13 will start in late 2019 and after that the construction of EPF 14 will commence in the middle of 2020, extending the EPF program to 2022.

March 5/19: Structural Bow Section The Navy awarded Austal USA a $13.6 million contract modification for the 11th and 12th Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) ships. The modification provides for the incorporation of a structural bow section engineering change proposal. The Spearhead-Class EPF is a Navy-led shipbuilding program. The class was previously designated as Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV). The EPF ships provide high-speed, shallow-draft transportation capability to support the intra-theater maneuver of personnel, supplies, and equipment for the Navy, Marine Corps and Army. The EPF program received Milestone A approval in May 2006. On 16 September 2016, Austal won a contract to design and construct EPF-11 and EPF-12. In 2015, the USNS Spearhead, the lead ship of the class, experienced bow-damage from rough seas requiring more than a half-million dollars to repair. It was determined that a design change recommended by Austal to the Navy late in the design phase in order to save weight has resulted in a weakened bow structure. The current modification is an undefinitized contract action for implementation of change to the bow structure on EPF 11 and EPF 12 on the DD&C Contract Line Item for each respective ship. Work will take place in Alabama, Mississippi, and Massachusetts and is scheduled to be finished by July this year.

December 5/18: EPF-14 Austal is being contracted to build another Spearhead-class vessel for the US Navy. The cost-plus-fixed-fee undefinitized contract action is priced at $40.4 million and procures long-lead-time material and production engineering services for Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) 14. EPF ships are the go-to platform for fast, intra-theater transportation of troops, military vehicles and equipment. These vessels bridge the gap between low-speed sealift and high-speed airlift. Their capability to access austere, minor and degraded ports make them very suitable for operations in underdeveloped countries. Work will be performed at multiple locations, including – but not limited to – Novi, Michigan; Chesapeake, Virginia and Iron Mountain, Michigan. The US Navy’s 14th EPF is expected to be completed by July 2022.

October 24/18: EPF-1 ROH Colonna’s Shipyard is being contracted to work on the Navy’s first Spearhead-class ship during the ship’s upcoming regular overhaul and dry docking phase. The firm-fixed-price contract is valued at $7.9 million and provides for a 67-calendar day shipyard availability. The contractor will be responsible to conduct structural inspection of the hull, perform a variety of repairs, support the main propulsion engine’s overhaul, replace heater exchangers and perform gear maintenance. The USNS Spearhead is an Expeditionary Fast Transport ship that was launched in 2011, it is designed for the fast, intra-theater transportation of troops, military vehicles and equipment with aviation support. Work will be performed at Colonna’s shipyard in Norfolk, Virginia. The Regular Overhaul availability is expected to be completed by January, 2019.

October 22/18: EPF-13 Austal is being tapped to start building the Navy’s next Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) ship. The undefinitized contract action is valued at $57.8 million and allows for the procurement of long-lead-time material and production engineering services. The Spearhead-class vessels are designed for the fast, intra-theater transportation of troops, military vehicles and equipment with aviation support. Bridging the gap between low-speed sealift and high-speed airlift, EPFs transport personnel, equipment and supplies over operational distances with access to littoral offload points including austere, minor and degraded ports often found in developing countries. The vessels are able to transport 600 short tons of military equipment to a range of 1.200 nautical miles at speeds of up to 35 knots. Work will be performed at multiple locations, including – but not limited to – Novi, Michigan; Mobile, Alabama and Rhinelander, Wisconsin. The US Navy’s 13th EPF is expected to be completed by November 2021.

February 28/18: Christening Ceremony The US Navy has christened its latest Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport, the USNS Burlington, during a ceremony in Mobile, Alabama, on Saturday. It is the tenth of 12 Expeditionary Fast Transports being built for the Navy at a cost of $1.9 billion. Overseeing the event were the ship’s primary sponsors US Senator Patrick Leahy and his wife Marcelle Pomerleau. Marcelle Leahy said naming the ship after the Vermont city of Burlington was “fitting because Vermonters have long heeded the nation’s call to service.” Built by Austal USA, the vessel is designed to transport troops and equipment at high-speeds and in shallow waters for rapid deployment. The Navy says it can “carry 600 short tons of military cargo for 1,200 nautical miles, at an average speed of 35 knots.” This equates to the Burlington being able to carry 1,200,000 pounds for 1,380 miles at an average speed of 40 mph. It also has a flight deck for helicopter operations and an off-loading ramp for disembarkment missions.

Sept 26/14: Naming. “Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced the next joint high speed vessel (JHSV) will be named USNS Trenton during a ceremony in Trenton, New Jersey, Sept. 25.” Um, OK. Trenton, which is still under construction, was publicly named by the Secretary of the Navy on April 12/13 (q.v.) Sources: US Navy, “SECNAV Names the Next Joint High Speed Vessel”.

“Preparations are underway for the launch of Trenton (JHSV 5) later this month with construction on Brunswick (JHSV 6) progressing well. Metal cutting began for Carson City (JHSV 7) in early September.”

Sources: Austal, “Austal Delivers Fourth Joint High Speed Vessel”.

USNS Fall River

June 13/14: Aerostat zapped. From US Naval Forces Southern Command:

“During routine testing off the coast of Key West, the Aerostat tethered off the Joint High Speed Vessel USNS Spearhead (JHSV-1) was struck by lightning at 12:21 in the morning, June 12…. The lightning strike caused the Aerostat to deflate and land in the water. Response efforts were delayed as the thunderstorm moved into the area. The Aerostat was subsequently sunk so to pose no hazard to other vessels or navigation.”

Aerostats are tethered blimps, used to dramatically expand a JHSV’s field of view (q.v. April 27/13). This can be very useful for survey and interdict deployments like Operation Martillo (q.v. March 31/14). Sources: US Navy, “USNAVSO/US 4th Fleet Statement regarding AEROSTAT”.

May 20/14: JHSV 3. USNS Millinocket will become the 1st JHSV deployed to the far east, where it will operate alongside the leased ship Westpac Express [HSV-4676] and the former Hawaii Superferry USNS Guam [HST-1].

MSC’s JHSV project officer Mike Souza says that USNS Millinocket is preparing for a move to San Diego, CA. She’ll serve as a display platform for the two EM Railgun prototypes during the May 26/14 International Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology in La Jolla, CA. Some final post-delivery tests and trials will follow, including some interface testing with a Mobile Landing Platform ship. Once the post shakedown availability trials and fixes are done, Millinocket head to an unspecified new homeport in the Far East. Sources: Seapower, “Millinocket Will Be the First JHSV in Westpac”.

April 7/14: Experiment: Railgun. The US Navy plans to use JHSV 3 Millinocket as a test platform for one of its newest weapons in 2016: a 32MJ rail gun that can fire projectiles about 100 miles at Mach 7 speeds. JHSV was picked as the trial platform because it has the space to carry the large system on its deck and in its cargo bay. The gun itself isn’t unusually large, but once you throw in the capacitors for power storage, any additional power needs, extensive maintenance tools and parts, and ammunition, it adds up fast. Rolling and bolting that onto a JHSV is much easier than using any warship, and the trial underscores JHSV’s usefulness as a concept testbed.

On the weapon’s side of the equation, ONR Chief Rear Admiral Matthew Klunder touts the railgun’s economic benefit, as well as its military edge in extending the bombardment range of naval guns and the number of rounds on board. It’s true that $25,000 for a defensive railgun shot against incoming missiles is orders of magnitude better than a RIM-116 RAM ($900,000) or RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile ($1.5 million), assuming the unproven assumption of equal effectiveness. One must also compute operating and maintenance costs over the railgun’s lifetime, however, which are going to be far higher than they would be for an All-Up-Round missile in its canister. The JHSV tests will offer some early data re: the gun’s robustness under trial conditions at sea, and that cost data point could end up being as valuable as any performance data. Sources: Reuters, “U.S. Navy to test futuristic, super-fast gun at sea in 2016”.

March 31/14: Operations. USNS Spearhead [JHSV 1] is preparing for a 2nd deployment, this time to the 4th Fleet’s waters around the Caribbean and South America. The US military is taking cautious steps to expand JHSV uses, and is explicitly following in the footsteps of HSV-2 Swift’s 2013 deployment. It’s well short of full innovation toward mothership roles, but still a step forward.

These extensions still have JHSV 1 operating primarily in a ferry capacity, with “adaptive force packages.” They’ll be carrying the USMC’s 4th Law Enforcement Battalion and equipment to the Dominican Republic. After the Marines are ferried back to Florida, a trip to Belize will involve a Navy Seabee explosive ordnance disposal detachment, and a riverine crew. From Belize, a a mobile diving and salvage unit and an explosive ordnance disposal team will be ferried from Guatemala to Colombia, before all of the units that were in Guatemala and Columbia end up ferried to Honduras.

In between, USNS Spearhead will “conduct detection and monitoring activities” in support of the multinational anti-drug Operation Martillo. Spearhead’s exact role isn’t made clear, but Spearhead works well with helicopters, Swift has shown that UAVs can be used from these ships, and it would be possible to have boarding teams embarked. Sources: US Navy, “Plans Finalized for USNS Spearhead’s Deployment to 4th Fleet AOR”.

March 21/14: #3 delivered. Austal delivers USNS Millinocket to US Military Sealift Command. They add that:

“Ships currently under construction are JHSV 4, which was christened in January and is being prepared for sea trials, JHSV 5, which has begun final assembly, and JHSV 6, which commenced construction in January in the module manufacturing facility. Five Independence-variant Littoral Combat Ships are also in construction at Austal’s US shipyard…”

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). JHSV will be able to carry 354 passengers for 96 hours, which is better than the required 312, but it’s overweight by 12.5 tons, and will fall short of required ranges at 23 knots (4,018 nmi vs. 4,700) and 35 knots (won’t make 1,200 nmi) transit speed. The extra weight amounts to about 4% fuel load, or 3,565 gallons.

Overall testing results have been positive. Loading tests demonstrated suitability up to M-1A2 tank loading onto a floating causeway. If the ships need replenishment at sea, both USNS Spearhead and USNS Choctaw County have successfully conducted fuel-only underway replenishments. For other supplies, vertical replenishment tests have included an MH-60S helicopter at night, and MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotos by day, and Aircraft Dynamic Interface testing has included MH-53E Minehunting helicopters. DOT&E says that “manning and facilities can accommodate handling of all required helicopters, with the exception of fuel and power.” Finally, DOR&E says that with an embarked security team and weapons, JHSV can engage a moving surface threat. The bad news, aside from ship range?

“The JHSV’s organic container load trailer is not effective for loading 20-foot long metal storage containers. During the IOT&E, the test team took five hours to connect the container load trailer with a storage container and failed to load it…”

Jan 17/14: JHSV 4. Fall River is launched at Austal’s Mobile, AL shipyard, after a side trip to BAE. Instead of moving down a slipway, launches are now float-off affairs from a BAE floating drydock. Getting to the drydock requires a transfer onto a barge, using Berard Transportation rollers. The ship was christened on Jan 11/14, and will be formally delivered to the USN later in 2014, after final fitting out. Austal adds that:

“Three JHSVs and four LCSs are currently under construction in Austal’s Mobile, Alabama shipyard. Austal will begin production of one more ship in each program before the end of January.”

Jan 16/14: JHSV 1 deploys. Operational use of the JHSV fleet begins with USNS Spearhead’s deployment from NAB Little Creek. She’ll head to “the US 6th Fleet Area of Responsibility” (Africa) until May 2014, then on to the 4th Fleet AOR (Central & South America) until December 2014. Sources: USN, “USNS Spearhead departs on Maiden Deployment”.

June 6/13: Naming. The Secretary of the Navy names the last 3 JHSV ships under contract.

The future USNS Yuma (JHSV 8) honors the city in Arizona near the USMC’s big testing range, and will be the 4th ship to bear this name. JHSV 9 USNS Bismarck is named in honor of North Dakota’s capital city. As one might imagine, it’s a first for the US Navy. JHSV 10 USNS Burlington is also a first, named for the largest city in Vermont. US DoD.

June 6/13: JHSV 2. USNS Choctaw County is accepted into service, after completing acceptance trials in May. Delivery just 6 months after the 1st ship in the class is a very fast pace. US Navy | Austal.

USNS Choctaw County

June 5/13: JHSV 3. Millinocket is launched from the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, AL. It’s not done, just entering the final phase of construction, test, and activation, followed by preparation for sea trials late in 2013. US NAVSEA | Austal.

April 27/13: Aerostat experiment. The Miami Herald reports that the chartered catamaran HSV 2 Swift is currently testing an interesting combination for the US Navy. An aerostat (tethered blimp) mooring system has been attached to the starboard rear at the helicopter deck, and sailors are deploying hand-launched Aerovironment Puma mini-UAVs to investigate targets cued by the aerostat’s radar and optical sensors. When fully deployed to 2,000 feet, Raven Inc’s TIF-25K gives Swift a sea surveillance radius of 50 miles at almost zero operating cost, roughly doubling a warship’s surveillance radius, and increasing Swift’s by 10x.

The JHSV ships and Hawaii Superferries (esp. USNS Puerto Rico) are natural fits for this configuration, given their similarity to HSV 2. If weight and other issues can be worked out, the USA’s Littoral Combat Ships like the trimaran Independence Class could also be an option, and so could amphibious LSD and LPD ships. Still, Swift needs to work out a coherent concept of operations in these trials, including the question of barrier vs. mobile surveillance approaches.

If all goes well with the operational tests, the US Navy will consult with drug enforcement agencies, including the Key West, FL Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF) that oversees Operation Martillo in the Caribbean. If the system is deployed, the biggest losers would probably be expensive-to-operate P-3 quad-turboprop sea control planes. US personnel have also begun promoting the concept to other nations, including Colombia, though those countries would almost certainly use their own ships.

April 20/13: JHSV 3 christened. The Millinocket is christened at Austal’s Alabama shipyard, named after 2 Maine towns. No word on negotiations concerning JHSV 10, though Austal’s release does make a point of noting 10 JHSV vessels under contract. US MSC | Austal.

April 12/13: Naming. 3 JHSV ships are among the 7 named by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who actually stuck to class naming conventions this time instead of veering into political partisanship.

JHSV 5 will become USNS Trenton, after New Jersey’s capital city. JHSV 6 will become USNS Brunswick, after the seaport in Georgia. JHSV 7 will become USNS Carson City, after Nevada’s capital city. Pentagon, “Secretary of the Navy Names Multiple Ships”.

April 5/13: LCS Council. The CNO adds the JHSV program to the portfolio of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Council, which was set up to manage the logistics, support, training, and concept of operations involved in making LCS a useful part of the fleet. Sources: Gannett’s Navy Times, “LCS council adds new member”.

Added to LCS Council

March 15/13: JHSV 2. Choctaw County completes builder’s trials, reaching speeds of more than 41 knots. Delivery is expected this summer. Austal.

March 2/13: JHSV 10.The US Navy’s guidance regarding sequestration budget cuts involves negotiations to cancel JHSV 10’s contract. They have to hold negotiations, because the contract is already live. The question will be cancellation costs.

Following delivery to the Navy, Spearhead will participate in operational testing before sailing to its layberth in Little Creek, VA. The Navy says that it expects the ship to begin conducting missions in Q1 of FY 2013. Which is to say, by Dec 31/12. US MSC | US Navy | Austal.

FY 2011 – 2012

Sept 15/12: JHSV 2 christened. USNS Choctaw County is christened during a ceremony at Austal USA in Mobile, AL. US MSC | Pentagon.

May 30/12: Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announces that the next JHSV will be named the USNS Millinocket. Pentagon.

May 8/12: The US Navy re-names the Hawaiian Superferries, which will becomes USNS Guam and USNS Puerto Rico.

They do not say, but it’s likely that the larger Huakai, tabbed to replace the Westpac Express and move Marines to and from Okinawa and Guam, is the future USNS Guam. The smaller Alakai was being considered for missions in Latin America and/or Africa, so it’s likely that she’ll become USNS Puerto Rico.US DoD.

April 25/12: The first of 43 modules for JHSV 3 have been successfully transported from the Module Manufacturing Facility (MMF), and erected in the final assembly bay on the waterfront, in preparation for the May 3/12 keel-laying ceremony. The 46 tonne, 20.4m x 8.3m x 9.4m module will be part of one of the catamaran akas. Austal.

April 19/12: JHSV-1 trials. The future USNS Spearhead completes builder’s trials of the ship’s propulsion plant, communication and navigational systems, ride control systems, pollution control systems; and first-of-class maneuverability and stability trials. The ship reached speeds of more than 35 knots, exceeding the program’s requirements.

Next steps include INSURV inspection, and commissioning. US Navy acceptance is scheduled by the end of 2012. USN PEO Ships | Austal.

Austal’s release offers a snapshot of current progress. USNS Spearhead is scheduled for builder’s sea trials in early March 2012. JHSV 2 is taking shape in Austal’s final assembly bay. Modules for JHSV 3 are being built, and the ship’s official keel laying is scheduled for April 12/12.

Jan 20/12: Superferry supplement bought. Inside the Navy reports that the cost for the 2 Hawaii Superferries, plus required modifications, is actually $70 million. The superferries were seen as a better option to move 880 Marines, because JHSV wasn’t designed for maximum passenger seating. Read “Hawaii Superferry’s Bankruptcy = US Navy Opportunity” for full coverage.

Dec 19/11: Superferries. The Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which will soon become law, looks set to buy both of the Austal-built Hawaii Superferries out of the firm’s bankruptcy, then send them to US MSC, alongside the future JHSV vessels. Read “Hawaii Superferry’s Bankruptcy = US Navy Opportunity” for full coverage.

“The race is on… The world is about to learn just how much value Austal’s investments in modular ship fabrication offers our Navy and Military Sealift Command customers. We challenge ourselves every day to build each ship faster and more efficiently than the one before.”

Oct 7/11: JHSV 6 named. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus names JHSV 6 as USNS Choctaw County. He grew up in that Mississippi county, though there are also Choctaw counties in Alabama and Oklahoma. Ray Mabus said that “I chose to name JHSV after Choctaw County to honor those men and women who represent rural America.”

Sept 10/11: JHSV 1 christened. JHSV-1 Spearhead is launched at Austal USA’s yard in Mobile, AL. The formal christening ceremony is held on Sept 17/11. The ship is reported to be slightly over budget, but not badly so – a welcome departure for a USN first ship of class. US MSC | Austal | Alabama Press-Register | Maritime Executive.

June 30/11: JHSV 6-7. Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $312.9 million contract modification, exercising options for JHSVs 6 and 7. Note, as usual, that this is not the full price of a ready to serve ship. On the other hand, JHSVs have much lower amounts of “government furnished equipment” beyond the base seaframe and installed gear, so the figure will be much closer than it would for a warship.

Options remain for another 3 ships under the current FY 2009-2013 contract, though the program of record tops out at 18 ships. Spearhead [JHSV 1] is scheduled for launch in August 2011, and delivery in December 2011, with other ships currently in various stages of assembly.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (48%); Pittsfield, MA (9%); Franklin, MA (3%); Philadelphia, PA (3%); Henderson, WA (3%); Atlanta, GA (2%); Chicago, IL (2%); Gulfport, MS (2%); Slidell, LA (1%); Iron Mountain, MI (1%); Houston, TX (1%); Dallas, TX (1%); Chesapeake, VA (1%); Milwaukee, WI (1%); and Brookfield, WI (1%), with other efforts performed at various sites throughout the United States (5%) and outside the United States (16%). Work is expected to be complete by June 2014. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-08-C-2217). See also US NAVSEA | Austal.

JHSV 10 bought

June 20-22/11: Corrosion issues? After USS Independence [LCS-2] corrosion reports hit Austal’s share price, a company release addresses the issue. It notes the complete lack of such problems on all of Austal’s commercial and military ships to date, and suggests that the US Navy may have failed to follow basic procedures. Information Dissemination has a different take, and wonders if Austal’s JHSV, which may not have a cathodic protection system either, could also be at risk due to the military’s added electronics:

“In the case of LCS-2, the problem was apparently accelerated by stray currents in the hull from the electrical distribution system problems the ship has been having since it was turned over to the Navy. LCS-4 doesn’t have [a cathodic protection system] either, but apparently CPS is part of the lessons learned process and was included in the fixed-price contracts for Austal versions of the LCS beginning with LCS-6. LCS-2 will have the CPS installed at the next drydock period, while Austal has said a CPS will be added to LCS-4 before the ship is turned over to the Navy. The question everyone seems to be asking is whether the JHSV could suffer the same issue… I’d be curious to know if Westpac Express has a CPS installed, or some other form of prevention is used at all.”

June 17/11: Corrosion issues? The US Navy has told Congressional appropriations committees that “aggressive” corrosion was found in the propulsion areas of the Littoral Combat Ship USS Independence, which rely on Wartsila waterjets. The ship has been given temporary repairs, but permanent repairs will require dry-docking and removal of the water-jet propulsion system. The strong Australian dollar has hurt Austal’s commercial exports, so this blow to its defense business has added impetus. Bloomberg | Alabama Press-Register | Sydney Morning Herald.

Corrosion in new ships isn’t unheard of, though it’s never a good sign. Norway’s Fridtjof Nansen Class AEGIS frigates had this problem, for instance. The Independence Class runs some risks that are specific to its all-aluminum construction, however, as key subsystems with different metals create risks of galvanic corrosion.

Corrosion controversy

June 11/11: Industrial accident. A 50-ton block from JHSV Vigilant, containing the ship’s service diesel generators, breaks loose while the module is being lifted and repositioned for further work. One source reported that pad eyes tore loose from the module, causing it to fall about 3 feet and tip over.

The extent of the damage to the module, and the cost of repairs, are still being assessed. The good news is that modular construction ensures less schedule impact. Defense News.

Accident

June 9/11:Inside the Navy reports that a June 14/11 Defense Acquisition Board meeting will determine the Navy’s readiness to procure JHSV ships 6-10. Defense officials may opt to fast-track the decision as a “paper DAB,” granting approval without requiring a meeting.

June 2/11: Sub-contract. Taber Extrusions LLC announces contracts to supply extruded aluminum products for JHSV 3 Fortitude, and LCS 6 Jackson, from its facilities in Russellville, AR and Gulfport, MS. Some structural extrusions for both ships will also be manufactured by Taber and supplied to Austal through a contract with O’Neal Steel Corp.

Taber has an 8,600 ton extrusion press with a rectangular container and billet configuration. The firm says that compared with smaller presses and round containers, their tool gives superior metal flow patterns with much tighter tolerances for flatness, straightness and twist; and better assurance of critical thickness dimensions. The resulting wide multi-void extrusions are friction stir welded into panels, and tight tolerances improve productivity while reducing downstream scrap. When finished, they make up some of the ship’s decking, superstructure and bulkheads.

May 2/11: Army Out. The US Army signs a memorandum of agreement to transfer custody of all 5 of its JHSVs to US Military Sealift Command. Army watercraft personnel who had been training to operate the ships have been reassigned. Instead, JHSVs will be operated by the US Navy’s Military Sealift Command, and crewed by civil service (JHSV 1-4) or civilian contract (JHSV 5-10) sailors. The transfer was approved in principle in December 2010, during Army-Navy talks.

MSC has been slated to operate the Navy JHSVs since August 2008, and in May 2010, MSC announced that the vessels would each have a core crew of 21 mariners (vid. May 13/10 entry). That template will now apply to all ships of class, which will carry a USNS designation instead of the Navy’s USS. US DoD | US MSC | Gannett’s Navy Times.

Navy-only now

Oct 12/10: #4 & 5 bought. Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $204.7 million contract modification, exercising options to build JHSV 4 and 5. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL, and is expected to be complete by December 2013. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-08-C-2217).

The $204.7 million is on top of the earlier $99.6 million long-lead materials contract, bringing the total so far to $304.3 million for the 2 ships. See also Austal.

June 3/10: #4-5 lead-in. Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $99.6 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-2217) for JHSV 4 and 5 long lead time materials, including main propulsion engines, aluminum, waterjets, reduction gears, generators and other components, beginning in fall 2010.

May 26/10: Sub-contract. Kongsberg Maritime has successfully delivered the first JHSV Helicopter Operations Surveillance System (HOSS) to General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems. The sub-contract was awarded in November 2009.

March 16/10: Support.Reuters reports on a recent US Navy SBIR research solicitation, aimed at more quickly and cheaply diagnosing cracking in aluminum ship structures. From US Navy SBIR N10A-T041: “Fracture Evaluation and Design Tool for Welded Aluminum Ship Structures Subjected to Impulsive Dynamic Loading” :

“A new analysis tool combined with an experimental validation protocol is needed to accurately characterize the dynamic response and fracture behavior of welded aluminum ship structures subjected to extreme loading events. The goal of this effort is to develop an explicit dynamic failure prediction toolkit for fracture assessment of welded thin-walled aluminum structures. To efficiently characterize a large size ship structure, innovative modeling techniques using fractured shell elements are needed along with a mesh independent crack insertion and propagation capability. In addition to innovative crack simulation in a shell structure, advanced constitutive models have to be implemented in the toolkit to capture the rate dependence and anisotropy in strength, plastic flow and ductility. Developing and demonstrating novel damage simulation and fracture prediction methods has significant potential impact on design and operation of current and future Navy welded aluminum, ship structural systems.”

US Navy Commander Victor Chen reiterated the Navy’s confidence in the JHSV and Littoral Combat Ships; the JHSV is aluminum construction, as is the LCS-2 Independence Class, and the LCS-1 Freedom Class uses an aluminum superstructure on a steel hull. He adds that:

“We already have a level of confidence in how to work with aluminum. The Office of Naval Research is trying to expand the knowledge base and build on what we already know.”

May 13/10: Crewing plans. The US Navy and Military Sealift Command announce the crewing plan for USN JHSVs (even numbers, JHSVs 2-10). Because the ships are new and could conduct a wide variety of missions, MSC determined that the best course of action is to institute a pilot program where JHSV 2 Vigilant and JHSV 4 Fall River will be crewed by 21 civil service mariners each, in order to create a base of experience and knowledge. Delivery as USNS Vigilant is scheduled for FY 2013, but the crews arrive beforehand; while USNS Fall River’s delivery is scheduled for FY 2014. JHSVs 6, 8 and 10 will be crewed with 21 civilian contract mariners each, with specifications developed based on experience with the first 2 ships.

The Army Transportation Corps officers have apparently won their argument to crew the Army’s JHSVs as USAV ships, involving larger crews of soldiers. Within a year, however, that victory would be undone. US MSC.

April 2/10: SAR baseline.The Pentagon adds [PDF] the JHSV program to its Selected Acquisition Reports. The program’s baseline is $3.9355 billion, and subsequent SARs set the number of ships at 18. The program is listed under the US Navy.

Baseline

Feb 11/10: Superferries. The former Hawaii superferries Huakai and Alakai are pressed into service by the USA’s Maritime Administration (MARAD), in the wake of the disaster in Haiti. The ships are managed by Hornblower Marine Services (HMS), and the deployment is seen as an earl concept test of the similar JHSV design’s operations. Haiti’s lack of port infrastructure has not, to date, been a major problem for these ships.

Maritime Executive magazine has the full report, and see also July 30/08 entry.

Feb 3/10: JHSV Boost?Defense News reports that the JHSV program may be about to get a very big boost. Navy Undersecretary Bob Work:

“There was a big debate within the [Navy] department on patrol craft, PCs… People said these are very good for irregular warfare. But when we looked at it we said we wanted to have self-deployable platforms that have a lot of payload space that you can take to the fight whatever you need – SEALs, Marines, riverine squadrons. So we decided to increase the Joint High Speed Vessel program.” Work said the Navy now envisions buying up to 23 of the ships for its own use, in addition to five being built for the Army. “We like their self-deployability aspects,” Work said. “They can be a sea base, they can be an Africa Partnership Station, they’re extremely flexible.”

Jan 28/10: JHSV 2 & 3. Austal USA in Mobile AL receives a $204.2 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-2217), exercising options for JHSV ships 2 and 3. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL, and is expected to be complete by July 2012. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract. See also the June 19/09 entry for related advance materials purchases.

The accompanying Austal release, adds that the similar (ex-)Hawaii Superferry ships, “Alakai” and “Huakai,” have been mobilized by the US Maritime Administration, and are currently supporting the ongoing relief operation in Haiti.

JHSV 2 & 3 bought

Dec 18/09: Industrial.Austal announces success in the US Navy’s Production Readiness Review (PRR), which allows their Mobile, AL facility to immediately begin construction of Fortitude [JHSV 1]. US Navy Program Manager George Sutton referred in part to Austal’s recently-competed Module Manufacturing Facility (MMF) when he said that:

“Considerable investments in the Austal shipyard coupled with the implementation of proven commercial technology gives me high levels of confidence in the shipyard’s ability to execute the program.”

Nov 10/09: Industrial. Austal officially opens its new $88 million state-of-the-art Modular Manufacturing Facility (MMF) in Mobile, AL, equipping its US shipyard with the ability to build up to three 100 metre-plus vessels each year. Phase 1 facility boasts 35,000 m2 of manufacturing space under one roof, including a 7,900 m2 warehouse, as well as paved parking for more than 2,000 vehicles.

The MMF will increase Austal USA’s capacity to assemble and outfit unit modules before consolidating them into the full vessel, automating component manufacture, including pipe runs, from a 3D model. This approach is widely used in advanced European and Asian shipyards, but is less common in the USA. Austal’s MMF is equipped with routers for the precise cutting of aluminum plate, as well as automated pipe and plate benders. Test constructions are currently underway at the new facility, with work on the first 103 meter JHSV scheduled to commence before the end of 2009. The facility will also build LCS-2 Independence class trimarans for the Littoral Combat Ship program. Austal release.

July 17/09: Ship names 1-3. The Pentagon announces names for the first 3 JHSV ships. The Army will field Fortitude [JHSV 1] and Spearhead [JHSV 3], while the Navy’s first JHSV will be named Vigilant [JHSV 2]. The names for JHSV 2 and 3 eventually change.

June 19/09: #2-3 lead in. Austal USA in Mobile AL receives a $99.6 million modification to their JHSV contract (N00024-08-C-2217), covering long lead time materials needed for JHSV 2 and JHSV 3. These materials include items like aluminum for the hulls, main propulsion engines, waterjets, reduction gears, generators, and other components that need to be on hand before construction begins in June 2010.

Once construction contracts are awarded for the 2 ships later in FY 2009, these materials will be moved with their associated costs into their respective ship construction line items.

April 6/09: US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates takes the unusual but approved step of making his FY 2010 defense budget recommendations public. They include another 2 high speed ship charters from 2009-2011, until JHSV ships begin arriving.

Nov 13/08: Austal wins. Austal USA in Mobile AL received a $185.4 million Phase II modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-2217) for 1 (one) JHSV, and for associated shore-based spares. The firm also has options for up to 9 additional ships by 2013, which could raise the contract’s total value to about $1.6 billion. The Naval Sea Systems Command, in Washington Navy Yard, DC manages this contract, which eliminates fellow Phase I winners Bollinger/Incat and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works. The 103m JHSV design appears to be based on Austal’s Westpac Express catamaran, which is currently under long term charter to the US Marines.

Work on this initial contract will be performed at the firm’s American facility in Mobile, AL and is expected to be complete by November 2010. Austal is teamed with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, who will design, integrate, and test the JHSV’s electronic systems, including an Open Architecture Computing Infrastructure, internal and external communications, electronic navigation, aviation, and armament systems.

Austal already produces ships in Mobile, AL, which has about 1,000 employees and will now grow to about 1,500 employees. Ships produced at this location include some similar civilian designs like the Hawaii Superferry, as well as the Independence Class trimaran Littoral Combat Ship produced in partnership with General Dynamics Bath Iron Works. Austal USA is growing the Alabama facility, and phase one of what will ultimately be a $170 million expansion should be complete by summer 2009. The assembly-line style manufacturing building will allow construction of 3 LCS/ JHSV/ Hawaii superferry scale vessels per year, rising to a capacity of 6 ships per year at full build out. Austal | General Dynamics | Marinelog | Alabama Press-Register | Biloxi-Gulfport Sun-Herald | Western Australia Today | Maine’s Brunswick Times-Record re: union lobbying in Congress to scrutinize the deal.

Austal Wins! JHSV 1 bought

FY 2005 – 2008

From initial requirements draft, to 3-team preliminary design contracts, to final RFP submissions.

Westpac express,
loading in Australia
(click to view full)

July 30/08: Austal announces its final Phase II JHSV submission to the US Navy, following an extensive detailed design and review process. The firm expects that a single Phase II contract for up to 10 JHSV ships will be awarded in late 2008.

Austal’s release adds the interesting tidbit that the firm was recently awarded a new contract to provide additional features and equipment on Hawaii Superferry’s second commercial 107 meter catamaran, in order to allow its use by the military if required.

Jan 31/08: Preliminary design. The US Department of Defense awards a trio of $3 million Phase I preliminary design contracts for the JHSV. Winners include:

Team Austal: Austal USA, Austal Ships (Australia), and General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems (GDAIS). This is sort of the same Austal/GD core team building the trimaran LCS 2 Independence design for the USA’s Littoral Combat Ship competition – but note competitor #3…

Team Incat: Louisiana-based Bollinger Shipyards, Inc., Incat of Australia, and its design arm Revolution Design, Nichols Brothers Boat Builders and Kvichak Marine in Washington State, and Gladding-Hearn (Duclos Corp) in Massachusetts. Their design will be based on Incat’s 112 meter wave-piercing catamaran, currently in commercial service. Consortium source.

April 23-27/07: Representatives of the US Army, Navy, Marine Corps and the shipbuilding industry meet at at Quantico Marine Corps Base, VA, to discuss the JHSV’s current status of the Joint High Speed Vessel and update prospective contractors on the vessel’s design requirements. US Army release.

November 2005: Initial Draft. The JHSV program office’s Initial Capability Document received approval from the Department of Defense Joint Requirements Oversight Council in early November. All four military services concurred with the decision. The Analysis of Alternatives for this program is scheduled to report out before the end of the 2005 calendar year, and procurement of the lead ship is planned for FY 2008. NAVSEA release

Appendix A: The US Military’s HSV/TSV Experience

Westpac Express
(click to view full)

Instead of arising from a drawing board or a notional requirements sheet, the JHSV’s requirements were based on 7 years of experience operating similar leased vessels, from 2001-2008. The core concept is based on an Australian innovation: fast catamaran ferries from Austal and Incat that are in widespread civilian use. Each ship has a carrying capacity equal to about 20 C-17 heavy airlifters, and their waterjets can power these aluminum catamarans through the water at a consistent 35-40 knots in calm seas. Robert Kaplan, in “Hog Pilot and Blue Water Grunts“:

“Who thought up the idea of using car ferries to get Marines to a combat zone and then link up with pre-positioning ships?” I asked a Marine chief warrant officer. “No-one at the Pentagon. Just a bunch of guys brainstorming here,” the chief replied.”

It was more than just brainstorming. Incat’s HMAS Jervis Bay had been used very effectively by Australia during East Timor’s 1999 independence referendum and subsequent operations, and its demonstrated capabilities attracted American interest.

The chartered vessels quickly lived up to their billing. Normal transit for a Marine battalion from Okinawa, Japan to South Korea aboard ferry or amphibious shipping is about 2-3 days, and moving it by air would take 14-17 “lifts” from C-17 aircraft, a process that might require several trips unless that many planes were available. The same deployment could be carried out by Austal’s chartered WestPac Express catamaran in 24-30 hours; which is to say, at about half the time of conventional naval options, and at about 25% of airlift’s costs. One ship can carry a complete battalion of up to 970 Marines, along with 663 tons of vehicles and equipment. If the Marines must deploy from Guam, where many are being moved from Okinawa, the added distance makes JHSV an even more timely and cost efficient option.

“I Serve With HSV-2!”
(click to view full)

Austal’s ships weren’t the only high speed vessels in operation. The Army operated Incat’s HSVX-1 Joint Venture in conjunction with the Navy, and TSV-1X Spearhead was under sole Army control until its 2005 return to commercial service. Both ships saw extensive Army use in operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, as well as supporting operations in the Pacific, Atlantic, Mediterranean, Horn of Africa, Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia.

In one operation, TSV-1X Spearhead moved the 101st Airborne Division’s military police and their equipment from Djibouti, Africa to Kuwait in the Persian Gulf. The fast catamaran made the 2,000 mile trip in just 2.5 days. Its naval LSV predecessor would have needed 10 days to make the voyage, and would only have carried the equipment, forcing the troops to fly separately.

HSVX-1 Joint Venture was even used by Special Operations Command as a proof-of-concept platform for a special operations force afloat in the western Pacific. Its modifications included a helicopter landing deck and hangar, along with a small military command, control and communications suite. Modifications to its complement also includedScanEagle UAVs, letting US Navy experiment with UAVs, blimps and related vehicles in a persistent surveillance role. The combination of high speed transport, persistent surveillance, and advanced communications may prove to be very complementary.

A 3rd Incat ship, the 112m HSV-2 Swift, was contracted to serve as an interim Mine Warfare Command and Support Ship (MCS), supporting R&D into new mine warfare modular payloads. From 2004 onward, its scope of use became far broader, and Swift’s geographic range expanded to include Africa, Asia, and recovery efforts in the USA after Hurricane Katrina. It remains in American service as of 2013, and continues to trial new approaches like aerostats and UAVs.

If HSVX-1 and HSV-2’s experiences sound a lot like the USA’s forthcoming Littoral Combat Ships, the similarity is no accident. Experience with these high-speed catamarans has played an important role in developing the LCS concept of operations, though the US Navy may not have taken the experiments to their logical conclusion. Given the emergence of naval unmanned vehicles, some observers believe that JHSV’s size and lower cost make it a better choice than the smaller LCS as a “robotic swarm mothership”.

Additional Readings & Sources

Thanks to DID reader and long-serving US MSC vet Lee Wahler for his assistance with this article.

Back in 2005, Great Britain was considering a public-private partnership to buy, equip, and operate the RAF’s future aerial tanker fleet. The RAF would fly the 14 Airbus A330-MRTT aircraft on operational missions, and receive absolute preferential access to the planes. A private contractor would handle maintenance, receive payment from the RAF on a per-use basis – and operate them as passenger charter or transport aircraft when the RAF didn’t need them.

The deal became politically controversial, and negotiations on the 27-year, multi-billion pound deal charted new territory for both the government, and for private industry. Which may help to explain why a contract to move ahead on a “Private Financing Initiative” basis had yet to be issued, and procurement had yet to begin, over 7 years after the program began. In March 2008, however, Britain issued the world’s largest-ever Defence Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract. This FOCUS Article describes the current British fleet, the aircraft they chose to replace them, how the new fleet will compare, the innovative deal structure they’ve chosen, and ongoing FSTA developments.

A330-200 MRTT: The RAF’s Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft

Voyager K3 & C-130J
(click to view full)

The A330-200 MRTT is a derivative of the Airbus A330, and was designed from the outset to be able to function as an aerial tanker and a transport aircraft at the same time. Obviously, hauling full loads over long distances would reduce its ability to offload fuel to other aircraft, but many deployments could still be accomplished. Deploying a fighter squadron along with its ground crew and other personnel, for instance, becomes a real possibility with this aircraft. Britain’s A330s will be equipped with Rolls Royce’s Trent 700 engine.

The UK’s A330 “Voyagers” will have up to 3 hose-and-drogue refueling points (2 wing, 1 center), using Cobham plc subsidiary Sargent Fletcher’s FRL900 systems. All 14 will sport 2 wing-mounted 905E aerial refueling pods each, which extend to 28m / 90 feet when fully trailed and can transfer up to 1,200 kg/minute. The Voyager K2s will be limited to that configuration, but half (7) will be 3-point Voyager K3s which also host 805E center-line Fuselage Refueling Unit that can transfer up to 1,800 kg per minute. The RAF will buy just 5 805E FRUs, however, leaving 9-10 aircraft to use just the wing pods.

Voyager 02 will temporarily offer a 3rd type, which is essentially an unconverted civil A330, until it’s fed back into the conversion program around 2015.

Unlike other A330 MRTT customers, Britain’s planes will lack the EADS ARBS refueling boom along the rear centerline. It’s used to refuel planes with dorsal indents, like F-16 and F-15 fighters, C-17 transports, etc., and will be present on A330 MRTTs operated by Australia (KC-30B), Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. The UK’s current tankers are all hose-and-drogue only, and except for its C-17 and RC-135 Rivet Joint planes, Britain has generally bought aircraft to suit. While continuing with this approach will limit flexibility with some allies, removal of the boom greatly simplifies civilian conversion and employment.

So, too, does the more problematic omission of full defensive systems to protect against radar-guided threats. Without such systems, however, Britain is unlikely to be able to deploy its new tankers over zones that are rated as dangerous.

FSTA vs. VC10
(click to view full)

The A330 MRTT has a maximum fuel capacity of 111,800 kg, or over 246,000 pounds. In the tanker role, the A330-200 provides twice as much fuel to receiver aircraft as the VC-10. The aircraft also has the capacity to carry 43,000 kg of cargo, including up to 32 463L cargo pallets, or up to 272 passengers, while carrying a full fuel load. AirTanker offers a scenario in which the A330 can fly 270 troops and 8,000 kg of their equipment some 4,700 miles, while also operating as an aerial tanker. Fuel capacity is slightly less than the TriStar’s 139,700 kg, but it carries slightly more passengers (272 vs. 266) and has slightly greater cargo capacity (43t vs. 31t). What it will not have, is the ability to take on more fuel in the air itself, in order to extend its own missions.

Based on the figures in this article, the FSTA program’s 14 A330-200 MRTT aircraft would provide only 50% of the aircraft compared to its present fleet, while offering 71% of the fuel capacity. Carriage on much more efficient aircraft will increase the percentage of fuel available for dispensing, though this may not close the refueling gap completely. On the other hand, the smaller FSTA fleet will boast 116% of the legacy fleet’s total troop carrying capacity, and 185% of its total cargo capacity.

UK FSTA: Program Details & Industrial Team

Making FSTA
(click for video)

The program will offer 14 A330-200 aircraft configured to UK specifications, under a 27-year, GBP 13 billion deal. As noted above, they will not be able to refuel in mid-air themselves, and will use only hose-and-drogue refueling that excludes some client aircraft.

As of July 2014, all 9 “core fleet” aircraft were delivered and in service: 4 x Voyager K2s, and 5 x Voyager K3s. Another 5 A330 Voyagers will serve in a surge fleet, and can operate as civilian aircraft unless called upon by the RAF for extraordinary duties. If called up, they may be fitted with Voyager K2 equipment. The balance of the 14-aircraft fleet is expected to become available to the RAF by 2016.

Schedule
(click to view full)

The first A330-200 FSTA aircraft in-service flight took place in April 2012 (back in 2005, it was expected in 2010), and began air-to-air refueling duties in 2013.

When the A330 arrangements were first announced, the RAF operated a very identifiable set of 28 VC10 and L-1011 tanker aircraft, which were entirely retired before the FSTA program even stood up its core fleet of 9 A330s. All of the RAF’s aerial tankers were operated out of RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, and that will continue. AirTanker will be based at a new, purpose-built facility at the same location used by the existing fleet: RAF Brize Norton. AirTanker will then provide an integrated all-inclusive service to the RAF that includes full maintenance, flight and fleet management, ground services and state-of-the-art training for RAF FSTA personnel.

Corporate structure
(click to view full)

AirTanker Ltd. holds the contract with the UK MoD, and formally owns the aircraft. It is a UK company, and its current shareholders are EADS (40%), Rolls-Royce (20%), Cobham (13.33%), Thales UK (13.33%) and VT Group (13.33%). While EADS and Thales are non-UK firms, the use of Thales’ UK subsidiary ensured that majority ownership would be held by British companies. The related AirTanker Services will operate the aircraft, and has a slightly different shareholding, at EADS (28%), Rolls Royce (22%), Thales UK (22%), VT Group (22%), and Cobham plc’s Flight Refueling Ltd. (5%).

Once fully operational, the FSTA service will employ around 500 personnel, with a 60:40 split between military and civilian.

Despite BAE’s divestment of its Airbus share, Airbus manufacturing still goes on in Britain. AirTanker Ltd. claims that around 7,500 jobs (3,000 direct, 4,500 indirect) will be directly or indirectly dependent on the FSTA project. The first 2 A330 aircraft will be converted at Airbus Military facilities in Madrid, but after that approximately 50% of the basic aircraft and 100% of the conversion work will be carried out in the UK. Principal work locations will include:

UK FSTA: Contracts & Key Events

2018

Queen’s Birthday
(click to view full)

October 19/18: Voyager refuels F-35B The UK Royal Air Force marks another milestone in its F-35 JSF program. One of the RAF’s B variant was successfully refuelled by a Voyager tanker aircraft. The refuelling took place earlier this week over the North Sea at 19,000 feet. Britain’s Voyager, is an Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) that functions both as an aerial tanker and a transport aircraft. A F-35B pilot told Forces TV that “it’s fantastic to be able to link up the UK’s 5th generation asset with the RAF’s Voyager tanker in UK skies for the first time.”

August 22/18: Hello – Singapore! The Singapore Air Force is adding a new multi-role transport aircraft to its fleet. Recent social media posts indicate that the aircraft recently landed at Changi West Air Base. The Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) was designed from the outset to be able to function as an aerial tanker and a transport aircraft at the same time. The A330 MRTT has a maximum fuel capacity of 246.000 lbs. and has the capacity to carry 43,000 kg of cargo, including up to 32 463L cargo pallets, or up to 272 passengers, while carrying a full fuel load. The aircraft is powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 772B-60EP engines, has a hose-and-drogue refuelling pod on both wings and a refuelling boom. Singapore has five additional A330 MRTT’s on order.

2015 – 2017

October 18/17: Airbus has selected Spanish defense electronics firm Indra to develop a tactical and integrated procedures simulation trainer for pilots of the former’s new A330 MRTT aerial refueling tanker. Indra’s Integrated Procedures Trainer (IPT) will be connected to the Partial Training system (PTT) used by boom operators to learn how to handle the refueling tube for supplying fuel to the aircraft, and will allow pilots to familiarize themselves with the systems of the A330 MRTT tanker and practice situations impossible to reproduce using a real plane, such as engine failure, aircraft stall and emergency landings. Previous work with Airbus has seen Indra develop simulators for Airbus’ commercial A320 and A330 aircraft and Airbus helicopters’ H135, H225, H175, H145 and AS350.

May 12/17: In a world first, Airbus has successfully completed the first test of its automatic air-to-air refueling (AAR) contact system. During the flight, the company’s A330 MRTT demonstrator was successfully steered into the receptacle of a Portuguese air force F-16 using image processing software that the company has been developing for more than a year. As many as six contacts were made over a 75 minute period, at 25,000 feet and 270 knots. The AAR system requires no additional equipment on the receiver and could be introduced on current production A330MRTTs as soon as 2019.

May 20/16: The UK has sent a RAF Voyager tanker to NAS Patuxent River to participate in air-to-air aerial refueling trials of the F-35B. Since arriving on April 18, the British tanker has participated in five flights out of a scheduled 20, which are due to be completed in mid-June. It remains unclear whether the Voyager’s deployment to the US was caused by refueling issues that arose from the B variant being unable to take fuel from the wing pods of KC-10 and KC-135 tankers.

November 4/15: The Pentagon is urgently trying to gain the necessary clearances required for combat aircraft to refuel from Airbus A330 MRTTs, used by coalition partners operating above Syria and Iraq. The Navy is also looking to gain clearances to use hose-and-drogue refueling systems installed on Royal Air Force Voyager tankers to certify the F-35B for this type of refuelling method. A Royal Australian Air Force KC-30A (a modified A330 MRTT) has already been used to conduct trials with a F-35A in September, with tests planned on a variety of other platforms.

2013 – 2014

TriStars retire; Full Voyager core fleet in service; 1st lease to a civil operator; Mechanical incident; Are the projected costs reported by NAO just fiddled figures?

July 14/14: Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology Philip Dunne greets a Voyager aircraft that has arrived for its Farnborough display, and confirms that the entire core fleet of 9 planes is fully in service after being delivered on time and on budget. He’s encouraging about that, saying:

“These events provide evidence that DE&S is becoming a higher-performing delivery organisation, better able to deliver vital equipment and support to the armed forces on time.”

June 24/14: Civil lease. One of AirTanker’s 5 “surge” fleet Voyagers has been leased by Thomas Cook Airlines under a 3-year agreement, as the airline becomes AirTankers 1st civil customer. The single A330-200 will be configured for an all-economy 323-seat configuration, and will operate in airline livery with seconded Thomas Cook Captains, First Officers, and cabin crew flying alongside AirTanker’s own civilian pilots. Beginning in May 2015, it will fly scheduled routes from Glasgow, Manchester and Stansted to Las Vegas, Cancun and Orlando.

The plane will be operated by AirTanker under its civil Air Operator’s Certificate, with base maintenance provided, but Thomas Cook will provide line maintenance. Sources: AirTanker, “AirTanker and Thomas Cook Airlines agree landmark civil leasing deal”.

1st civil lease

May 29/14: Core complete. RAF Brize Norton accepts the 9th Voyager, ZZ338. This completes the RAF’s core fleet, which will consist of 4 K2s with wing pods, and 5 x K3s with an added centerline hose.

The other 5 will be “surge capability” planes that can be leased to the civil market unless and until the RAF needs them. AirTanker, “ZZ338 arrival completes the RAF Voyager core fleet”.

Core fleet delivered

April 7/14: France. An AirTanker release highlights the efforts of Armee de l’Air pilot Capitaine Francois Gilbert, who is on secondment to RAF No.10 Squadron at Brize Norton:

“The French Air Force is expected to place its first order for the MRTT later this year. With the first of 12 tankers built by Airbus Defence and Space to be delivered by 2018, they will replace France’s 14-strong [refueling and transport] fleet of C135 FR jets, three A310 and two A340.

“I’m here to build an understanding of the MRTT, its capability and training required to fly it so that when I go back, the knowledge and understanding that I have gained here, can be applied to the French AAR programme”, he says.”

It also provides a solid foundation if France should need to buy FSTA flight hours before 2018, though that’s looking less likely. Sources: AirTanker, “Entente [Most] Cordiale”.

March 24/14: TriStar retires. A pair of 216 Squadron TriStars fly from RAF Brize Norton on an air-to-air refuelling mission over the North Sea, then one conducts flypasts at airfields associated with its history. It marks the end of the L-1011 TriStar’s service with the RAF. The 4 remaining TriStars will fly to Bruntingthorpe Airfield, Leics for disposal.

Over the last 8 years, 216 Sqn flew to Afghanistan 1,642 times, carrying around 250,000 troops into and out of theater. Its 139,700 kg fuel load will also missed, but it’s worth remembering that this fuel is for the parent aircraft as well. The Voyager’s flight efficiency means that its 110,000 kg fuel load can’t be used as a direct comparison. Sources: RAF, “TriStar Retires After 30 Years Service with the RAF”.

TriStar fleet retired

Feb 13/14: NAO Report. Britain’s National Audit Office releases their 2013 Major Projects Report. They’ve changed the cost basis slightly, as fuel isn’t normally part of program reporting. Even with that discrepancy normalized, the program has still seen its overall whole-life cost to 2035 drop by GBP 386 million from initial approval, to GBP 11.393 billion. Poking deeper into the report, the largest sources of savings involve changes toward a risk-based method for costing equipment obsolescence and projected refinancing savings (GBP 398 million total). On the flip side, this year saw GBP 45 million added because of revised inflation estimates. Time will tell whether those changes are valid.

The program remains on schedule. Infrastructure at Brize Norton is complete, and the training service is operating. This was interesting:

“MoD placed on contract the enhanced FSTA Aircraft Platform Protection system (EDAS). Embodiment is under way, as planned in the programme and is also reflected in wider defence capability planning.”

Feb 9/14: Incident. An AirTanker Voyager aircraft suddenly plummets about 5,000 feet while in flight from RAF Brize Norton to Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. The pilot regained control, the aircraft was diverted to a landing at Incirlik AB in Turkey, and passengers were treated for minor injuries.

The military fleet remains grounded while an investigation takes place, and AirTanker may have to reimburse the Ministry for lost flying hours. The civil Voyager 02 will keep flying, which will keep the Falklands air bridge open, but it isn’t cleared to fly to Afghanistan. AirTanker, “Incident 9/2/14: Flight between RAF Brize Norton and Camp Bastion” | Daily Mail, “RAF grounds all Voyager planes after one aircraft plummets several thousand feet during flight to Afghanistan” | Dailt Mirror, “Voyager planes grounded after aircraft carrying 190 people plummeted thousands of feet during flight” | Reuters, “Britain grounds Voyager military fleet after in-flight incident”.

Dec 21/13: Operations. RAF Voyager aircraft have begun flights into Afghanistan, airlifting soldiers from Camp Bastion in Helmland, Afghanistan back to Britain. The accompanying pictures show the planes loading at night, which is one way to handle poor defensive systems.

101 Sqn Wing Commander Ronnie Trasler says that 6 Voyager aircraft are already in service with the RAF, and the core fleet of 9 aircraft is on track to be in service by May 2014. Sources: RAF, “Voyager Flies to Afghanistan”.

2013

Sept 30/13: Typhoon update. Progress with the Eurofighter Typhoon (q.v. Dec 6/11) and Tornado GR4 strike fighter (q.v. April 5/12) fleets has been slow, so AirTanker is eager to offer a progress update. The UK MoD gave Voyager clearance to begin air-to-air refuelling (AAR) operations with Typhoon in late May 2013, with a formal Release to Service (RTS) on Aug 15/13. “Voyager and Typhoon have now completed more than 350 contacts, offloading 840 tonnes of fuel to the end of this month [Sept].” Tornado GR4 refueling has also been problematic, with clearance received only “at the beginning of summer,” and 1,460t of fuel offloaded since then.

Transport is seeing more action, with the entire military fleet clocking a total of 5,400 hours, carrying more than 110,000 passengers and 6,300 tonnes plus of freight. The civil Voyager 02 is now up to 1,200 hours, almost 30,000 passengers, and more than 1,600 tonnes of freight.

Summer 2013 also saw AirTanker receive its Extended Twin (Engine) Operations (ETOPs) clearance from the Civil Aviation Authority, which lets the civilian airline take on long-range routes and fly up to 180 minutes from the nearest suitable airport. This is a precursor for its expected October 2013 role in support of the Falklands air bridge. Sources: AirTanker, “Voyager and Typhoon complete more than 350 contacts”.

Sept 20/13: Final Flight. The VC10 performs its last operational flight for the RAF. The 2-ship VC10 K3 sortie (tails ZA147 and ZA150) included the full range of counterparts: Typhoon and Tornado GR4 fighters, Hercules transports, even extending the mission by refueling one VC10 from the other. To mark the tanker’s long service, a VC10 flew over various RAF stations, including RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Coningsby, RAF Marham and RAF Leuchars, as well as sites in Warton, Birmingham and Prestwick.

The formal retirement ceremony is Sept 25/13, but in our books, the last flight is the end. Sources: UK MoD release.

VC10s retired

May 29/13: #5 arrives. Voyager 05 (ZZ333), which is also a K3 3-point tanker, arrives at RAFB Brize Norton.

April 26/13: #4 arrives. Voyager 04 arrives in Brize Norton, where it becomes the 1st The first of 7 Voyager K3 tankers configured to include a centerline fuselage tank and hose, in addition to wing pods. The new A330 will join existing Voyager K2s (01 and 03) on the Military Aircraft Register, and operate as ZZ332.

Since the start of operational service in April last year, Voyager 01 (ZZ330) and 03 (ZZ331) have totaled more than 1,700 hours, carrying more than 25,000 passengers and over 2,000 tonnes of freight. The civil Voyager 02 (G-VYGG) has flown more than 230 hours, carrying more than 5,000 passengers and more than 300 tonnes of freight. It forms the core of AirTanker’s airline operation, which began operations with an inaugural flight to Akrotiri in January 2013. Sources: AirTanker, “AirTanker takes receipt of first ‘three-point’ tanker”.

March 14/13: Say what? UK minister for defence equipment, support and technology Philip Dunne confirms to Flight International that new A400Ms won’t have in-flight refueling pods added to let them perform as aerial tankers, because:

“The Ministry of Defence has recently refreshed its study into requirements for air-to-air refuelling capability. This concluded that Voyager will meet all requirements; therefore, there is no need for an air-to-air refuelling capability by the A400M Atlas.”

The RAF’s new A330 Voyager MRTTs lack key defensive systems, in order to avoid conflicts with their secondary use as civil charter planes. Those kinds of warning and decoy systems are necessary for refueling aircraft in even mildly hazardous environments. As tactical military transports with good range and no other uses, the A400Ms would have been well qualified to fill that gap. Flight International.

Jan 24/13: The Little Prince. A Voyager aircraft brings Prince Harry back to England, along with the rest of his Apache attack helicopter unit. Having said that, note the flight points:

“The Prince, who is known as Captain Wales in the Army, touched down at RAF Brize Norton late yesterday afternoon [23/1/13] on an inbound flight from RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus.”

Akrotiri is considered a “safe” airfield – unlike Kandahar in Afghanistan, which would have been Capt. Wales departure point. There are also certifications required to fly those kinds of distances. AirTanker.

In contrast, Voyager 02 will be flown on the Civilian Aircraft Register and operated by AirTanker, using its own pilots and supported by AirTanker cabin crew.

Dec 13/12: AOC. AirTanker successfully demonstrates its full service capability to the Civil Aviation Authority in a proving flight to Reykjavik, in order to secure its Air Operating Certificate (AOC). Source: AirTanker, “Voyager 03 flies into RAF Brize Norton”.

“By the end of this year, the last of the UK’s Lockheed Martin C-130K Hercules will be retired from use, while the replacement Airbus Military A400M won’t start appearing on the ramp at RAF Brize Norton until during 2014… But it is in the tanker sector that the biggest headache is emerging. The RAF’s last nine Vickers VC10s… [will be] retired in March 2013, with its Lockheed TriStars (including four tankers) to follow by the end of the same year… Only one [A330 Voyager] is currently in service, initially in an air transport capacity only, and I’m hearing that fuel venting problems encountered during earlier refuelling trials have yet to go away… The RAF needs tankers to sustain quick reaction alert duties… as well as supporting deployed examples defending the Falkland Islands and allied strike aircraft flying over Afghanistan. With the noise of the VC10’s “Conway [engine] quartet” to fall silent in only nine months, the pressure is really on for the Voyager to deliver.”

DID is going out on a limb, and predicting that either or both of the VC10 and L-1011 TriStar fleets will remain in service past their current retirement dates. Even private aerial tanker services like Omega wouldn’t be able to fully cover those needs, though a mix of TriStars for distant missions and contractors for Quick Reaction Alerts might work for a limited time.

June 22/12: Conversion switched. Cobham plc and AirTanker Ltd. (in which Cobham is a 13.33% shareholder), issue a joint statement that yanks A330 conversion work from Cobham’s UK facility back to Airbus Military in Spain. Cobham tries to minimize the decision, saying that there are “no technical issues with the conversion process,” adding to co-locating the conversion with the design office in Spain is only about “greatly improving efficiency and shortening the supply chain.” The net effect is to kill 320 British jobs at Bournemouth: 237 Cobham employees, and 83 contractors.

A step like this isn’t taken unless there were serious problems, and significant customer pressure. The core problems are hinted at by AirTanker’s release, which mentions a need “to ensure the timely delivery” of the planes, as part of a focus on delivery “on time and on cost.” The Cobham and AirTanker, they say, “have mutually recognized that this is the best way of meeting their own commitments and have taken the responsible decision…” This is all a kind way of saying that Cobham may not have had technical problems, but they aren’t performing to schedule or cost targets, and the problem is bad enough that the project is in danger of missing its commitments. Two industry sources contacted by The Sun newspaper cited Cobham delays as a problem, and one offered a stark assessment: “Basically, Cobham can’t do the job. They haven’t invested.”

The C-Check is a full-aircraft inspection, usually done every 15-21 months or after a specific amount of actual Flight Hours. In the Voyager’s case, it’s a matter of time and not flight hours. Flight International.

April 5/12: Hosed?Reuters reports that the A330 Voyager’s hose and drogue system has experienced leakage problems when refueling RAF Tornado fighters:

“A source close to AirTanker said the problem was in pipes which connect the Voyager to Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado warplanes which leaked when fuel was pumped through them during mid-air testing. The source said the refuelling trial was continuing.”

Failure to meet requirements could result in contract penalties. In response, AirTanker issued a statement via YouTube, while showing a refueling contact with a Tornado GR4:

“The Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (ACAS) signed the Voyager Release to Service and Certificate of Usage yesterday (05 Apr 12) and the aircraft will commence flying operations On the Military Aircraft Register with the RAF next week. Voyager is already a certified tanker and Air to Air Refuelling trials to clear RAF receiver aircraft to receive fuel from Voyager continue. As would be expected with a new aircraft, there have been some technical problems, but these are being addressed. AirTanker fully expects to deliver the core fleet of nine aircraft by 2014 in line with the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) Contract.”

April 4/12: 1st service flight. The aircraft took off from RAF Brize Norton for a training sortie around the United Kingdom, in its 1st service flight for the RAF.

The type was granted a Release To Service for Air Transport, and was placed on Military Aircraft Register the next day. AirTanker LLC | Airbus Military.

1st service flight, Release To Service

Feb 22/12: France.Defense Aerospace reports on a 2012 news conference involving French DGA head Lauren Collet-Billon. He leaves the door open to FSTA participation, but makes it clear France will have its own tankers:

“Although it may buy tanker capacity from the Royal Air Force “if the flight hour price is affordable,” France intends to buy its own fleet of A330 tankers which are required to support the French air force’s sovereign nuclear strike mission. These will be ordered in 2013.”

2011

1st FSTA arrives.

A330: Voyager 01
(click to view full)

Dec 6/11: Delay. The British Forces Broadcasting Service reports that:

“The first A330 Voyager had been due to be handed over in October, but isn’t now expected at its new home of Brize Norton until the New Year. The private company that will operate the aircraft says it is down to the availability of Typhoon fast jets for air-to-air refuelling tests.”

The RAF Typhoon fleet’s base availability rate been a subject of some controversy lately. This problem could also stem from the need to have Typhoons on Libyan operations and home patrol missions, which would leave few planes available for other tasks like testing.

An interim contract for 5-7 A330 MRTTs planes is now expected in 2013, which means AirTanker LLC is less likely to see any French leasing contracts.

Sept 4/11: Airbus Military delivers the 1st Airbus A330-200 aircraft to Bournemouth, UK, where Cobham Aviation Services will handle conversion into the RAF’s Voyager tanker configuration. It’s actually the 3rd FSTA plane built so far, but the first 2 were built and converted entirely by Airbus Military in Spain.

The conversion program will include 2 wing-mounted 905E aerial refueling pods for each plane, and half (7) of the “Voyagers” will also be fitted for 805E center-line fuselage refueling units. Airbus Military | Cobham Plc [PDF].

Aug 8/11: The 1st Voyager aircraft arrives at RAF Brize Norton. It’s involved in a flight testing program to certify it as a refueler for Tornado strike fighters. The visit was actually more of a stopover from Airbus Military’s home in Getafe, Spain, before departing for MOD Boscombe Down the next day. AirTanker LLC.

April 18/11: 1st FSTA arrives. The 1st FSTA aircraft arrives in the UK, touching down at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire. The aircraft also picks up a formal military name: Voyager.

Boscombe Down will host 2 of the Voyager aircraft for an intensive program of testing and trials in the refuelling role, set to continue into 2012 with Tornado, Sentry, Typhoon and Hercules aircraft. Those first 2 development aircraft had their military conversion process and initial flight testing done at Airbus Military’s facility near Madrid, Spain, but the next 12 Voyagers will be converted by Cobham at their facility in Bournemouth, UK. UK MoD | Airbus Military | AirTanker.

March 31/11: RAF Brize Norton’s 2-bay hangar and support building officially opens. It will become the FSTA program’s maintenance facility, flight operations centre and office headquarters. AirTanker.

2010

FSTA production
(click to view full)

Dec 20/10: Due to extreme bad weather at RAF Brize Norton, 2 of RAF 99 Squadron’s C-17s end up spending the night on aeromedical standby inside AirTanker’s hangar, which has been built but not fully fitted out yet. AirTanker.

“15. Air to air refuelling and passenger air transport. We are currently investigating the potential to use spare capacity that may be available in the UK’s Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) programme to meet the needs of France for air to air refuelling and military air transport, provided it is financially acceptable to both nations.”

France currently flies 14 C-135FRs for aerial refueling, and will probably need to keep these Boeing 707 relatives in service for refueling in combat zones and nuclear strike missions. Their planned replacement buy of A330 MRTT refueling and transport planes has been pushed back due to budget concerns, however, creating a need for a stopgap than can lower the C-135FR fleet’s flight hours, and fill some of the gaps. The FSTA tankers will be downgraded versions of France’s own future buy, making it an attractive option that could even result in a reduced future purchase of A330s for the Armée de L’Air.

On the British side, more hours bought by military users beyond Britain makes key modifications like defensive systems easier to justify, and easier to handle operationally because the need for civilian conversions and removal/ modification is reduced.

Oct 26/10: Maiden flight of Britain’s 2nd AirTanker A330 MRTT, which was converted from a basic A330-200 by Airbus Military in Getafe, Spain. Airbus Military.

“PFI works best where activities and demand are predictable. This is clearly not the case for FSTA. For instance, it is simply astonishing that the Department did not decide until 2006 that FSTA should be able to fly into high threat environments such as Afghanistan. Yet the Department is inhibited from changing the specification because of the implications to the cost of the PFI. Just two years after the deal was signed, the forthcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review is likely to change the demand for the services AirTanker has been contracted to deliver. As the Committee’s previous work shows, dealing with changes on PFI deals is expensive and the Review may question whether this PFI deal is sensible or affordable. The fact that no other country has chosen to procure air-to-air refuelling and passenger transport using PFI type arrangements is further indication that PFI is not a suitable procurement route for such important military capabilities.

There are significant shortcomings in the Department’s procurement of FSTA and we do not believe the procurement was value for money. The shortcomings include…”

Aug 27/10: Rollout. The first A330-200 FSTA plane rolls out of Airbus Military’s hangar in Getafe, Spain, at the end of its indoor conversion and testing. First flight is expected in September 2010. AirTanker Services.

July 7/10: France. French defense minister Hervé Morin tells the parliamentary defense committee that France will postpone program contracts worth EUR 5.4 billion, in an effort to slash EUR 3.5 billion from the military budget over the next 3 years. France’s plan to replace its aged C-135FR aerial tankers with 14 A330-200 MRTT aircraft by 2015 is one of the delayed programs, even though it’s critical to many of the goals in the government’s 2009 defense white paper.

The parliamentary committee reportedly asked Morin if sharing the British FSTA service might help as a stopgap. If so, it would be a partial one at best. Not only is FSTA unable to operate in even low-threat areas, a commercial service cannot be used to refuel nuclear-armed strike aircraft. That was not an issue for Britain, whose nuclear weapons are limited to submarine-launched Trident missiles. Defense News.

March 20/10: NAO report. Britain’s NAO auditors publish their report “Ministry of Defence: Delivering multi-role tanker aircraft capability.” The key takeaway: “The National Audit Office has been unable to conclude that the Ministry of Defence has achieved value for money from the procurement phase of its £10.5 billion private finance deal for the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA).” Excerpts:

“During the negotiation of the deal… testing showed that the PFI solution was between 15 per cent better and 5 per cent worse than the [public sector] Comparator depending on which aircraft, discount factor and delivery confidence level was selected, and offered better value for money in seven of the eight scenarios presented… the Department never gained visibility of detailed sub-contractor costs and margins for the aircraft and their modification… until 2004, the project team had insufficient staff with PFI experience and frequent changes of team leader… there has been no compensating reduction in the support costs for the TriStar and VC10 fleets, which stood at approximately [GBP] 105 million in 2008-09.

…Since contract signature, the project has achieved its delivery milestones and is on budget… The Department is undertaking a large scale re-development at RAF Brize Norton with the intention that new facilities are operational by 2012, shortly after FSTA’s entry into service [in 2011]. However, there is little timescale contingency in these plans.

…The Department managed the later stages of the procurement of FSTA well, including making effective use of advisers and skilled Departmental staff in the latter stages of the negotiation, and transferring the risk to AirTanker for the introduction of the service. The Department did well to close the deal in difficult market conditions… [but, in earlier phases] The Department chose a PFI strategy for FSTA with no realistic assessment of alternatives… The Department was forced to narrow the field to one bidder while a number of significant issues remained… The Department never gained visibility of sub-contractor costs and margins… Neither did the Department undertake any “should-cost” modelling… Between the start of the formal assessment phase and contract signature, the Department spent [GBP] 48 million managing the project, including [GBP] 27 million on advisers, [GBP] 10 million on supporting the bidders and [GBP] 11 million on internal costs.”

March 29/10: Progress report. AirTanker Services offers a program update 2 years in, saying that all major milestones have been met since the Contract was signed on March 27/08. Construction at RAF Brize Norton continues to plan; the exterior work on the modern 2-bay hangar and support building was completed at the end of 2009, the interior fit out is well underway, the first milestone on the training center was completed 7 weeks ahead of schedule, and the Main Operating Base is scheduled to finish early in 2011. AirTanker is preparing for the first test flight in military configuration later in 2010. AirTanker Services release [PDF].

2009

Program on track.

FSTA-1 to Getafe
(click to view full)

July 10/09: The FSTA program’s first Airbus A330-200 flies from Airbus’ Toulouse, France, factory to the Airbus Military facility at Getafe, Spain, on schedule, today. Conversion of this first FSTA aircraft with military avionics and refuelling capability will now commence, in a new, purpose-built, permanent hangar. AirTanker Services release [PDF].

June 4/09: The first A330-200 aircraft built for the FSTA partnership completes its 3-hour maiden test flight on schedule. As the aircraft was put through a series of maneuvers covering its entire flight envelope, engineers conducted various compliance tests on the engines and onboard systems. UK MoD | AirTanker Services release [PDF].

April 1/09: Progress report.The UK MoD issues a release, covering the state of the FSTA program. In mid-November 2008, ATrS completed and handed over improved facilities at RAF Brize Norton that included bulk diesel and waste fuel tanks, air side motor transport parking, wash pan drainage facilities; and a petrol, oil and lubricants store.

Work has started on a 2-bay hangar and associated workshops, as well as what will be a 4-floor office. the office will host the RAF’s 2 FSTA squadrons, the MOD’s Integrated Project Team, and AirTanker corporate personnel. On which topic, ATrS has hired over 30 new recruits.

Feb 25/09: The first FSTA wingset is completed at Airbus UK’s Broughton factory, and is loaded onto an Airbus Beluga aircraft for the journey to Bremen, Germany, for final equipping. Toulouse, France, will be the site for final assembly. Source.

LAIRCM’s system used laser pulses that hit incoming missiles to confuse their infrared guidance systems, and it has become a very popular system for protecting VIP flights and large aircraft like the C-17, E-3 AWACS, C-130, et. al. NGC’s partnership with EADS to build the A330 variant KC-30B for the American tanker competition didn’t hurt their chances, either.

March 27/08: PFI Contract. Rolls Royce announces that “As a shareholder and sub-contractor to AirTanker, the value to Rolls-Royce over the lifetime of the 27-year programme is estimated at over GBP 700 million.” The firm adds that “In line with its shareholding Rolls-Royce will contribute approximately 20 per cent of the equity investment required for the programme, the majority of which is not payable until the operational phase of the programme.”

Rolls-Royce will source components from its global supply chain, then assemble and test the engines at their Derby facility. It will then provide Mission Ready Management Solutions support for the engines once they’re in service. Program management and real-time, proactive diagnostic support will be provided from Rolls Royce’s Defence Aerospace headquarters in Bristol, with additional personnel based at RAF Brize Norton.

According to Rolls Royce, the Trent 700 engine has 53% of firm and option orders for global A330 fleets, including 70% of orders over the last 5 years. Competitive virtues cited include higher thrust, and a full-length cowl that reduces infra-red signature. While the RAF’s program is large in absolute terms, within the overall context of Rolls Royce’s business, one should consider that Trent 700 manufacturing and service in 3 months of 2008 (about $5 billion/ GBP 2.5 billion) is about 3 times the value of the RAF’s 27-year program. Rolls Royce release.

March 27/08: PFI Contract. AirTanker and its Shareholders (Cobham, EADS, Rolls-Royce, Thales UK and VT Group) sign a GBP 13 billion (about $26.04 billion), 27-year contract with the UK Ministry of Defence for 14 new aerial tanker aircraft based on the Airbus A330-200 MRTT, and powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines. The aircraft will enter service beginning in 2011, with aerial refueling services beginning in 2014 and full service beginning in 2016. They will replace Britain’s surviving fleet of 19 VC-10 and 9 L-1011 TriStar aircraft.

The FSTA contract also includes the provision of all necessary infrastructure, including a state of the art 2-bay hangar, training, maintenance, flight operations, fleet management and ground services to enable worldwide Air-to-Air Refuelling and Air Transport missions. An infrastructure program will begin in May 2008 at at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, and the program as a whole is expected to sustain up to 3,000 long-term direct jobs, plus another 4,500 indirect jobs. You may even end up flying in one:

“A number of the aircraft will be operated on the civil register flying commercial Air Transport tasks when not subject to operational requirements, thereby enabling greater productivity for the fleet. Within the PFI agreement, the MoD will only pay for the service once it is available and then only for the capacity that it uses, subject to agreed minimum usage levels.”

The final stage in the process of preparing for contract closure was a financing competition conducted over the last 6 months by the AirTanker consortium, which raised approximately GBP 2.5 billion ($5 billion). UK MoD release | AirTanker Ltd. release [MS Word] | EADS release.

2006 – 2007

“In response to the UK PFI Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) requirement, the AirTanker consortium (EADS is 40 percent shareholder and platform provider) has made significant progress in the finalising of contractual arrangements with the UK MoD and in the selection of lenders and financing structure. In the other tanker variant that the Division is currently introducing into the market includes the air-refuelling boom system which is now nearing completion of its development phase and continues flight testing.”

June 6/07: Financing.AirTanker Ltd. announces [PDF format] that it has begun work on the Financing Competition to raise almost GBP 2 billion (about $4 billion) in initial capital, in conjunction with Deutsche Bank. It will be used to start up the business as a fully operational concern, buy the aircraft, and build the new facilities at RAF Brize Norton.

July 16/06:AirTanker announces [PDF] that the US State Department has granted umbrella approval, in the form of a brokering licence, which will allow AirTanker to provide the FSTA service to the RAF with aircraft containing US-supplied military equipment.

2000 – 2005

Program start. Final bids. A330 picked.

RAF TriStar KC1
(click to view full)

July 11/05:AirTanker announces [MS Word format] that Phill Blundell has been appointed as the firm’s Chief Executive. He had joined AirTanker from BAE Systems at the start of May 2005 and has been assuming greater responsibilities leading up to his formal appointment. His last role at BAE Systems was Group Managing Director C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance), with a focus on non-platform and complex systems integration.

Feb 28/05: Following revisions to AirTanker’s proposals, and its re-assessment to the same evaluation criteria used for the January 2004 assessment, the UK government names the AirTanker consortium as its preferred bidder for the FSTA program, which is expected to be worth GBP 13 billion (about $25 billion in March 2005) over its 27-year lifetime. AirTanker release [PDF] | DID coverage.

January 2004: A330 picked. AirTanker is selected by the UK Ministry of Defence as the bidder most likely to provide a value for money solution, and contractual negotiations on key commercial terms begin.

August 2003: Final bids. Final bids are received from the TTSC (BAE, Boeing, Serco, Spectrum Capital) and AirTanker (EADS, Rolls Royce, Cobham, Thales UK) consortia. The delay from the initial bids is due to the MoD’s 2002 Equipment Planning process.

July 3/01: The MoD receives 2 initial bids: one from a BAE/Boeing consortium, another led by EADS.

Dec 21/2000: An Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) is issued to industry

Dec 19/2000: FSTA begins. The FSTA Program is given initial gate approval by Ministers and enters a formal Assessment phase.

Appendix A: PFI – The Art of the Deal

Tony Blair
(click to view full)

Under Prime Minister Blair, Britain’s Labor government made far greater use of Public-Private Partnerships/ Private Financing Initiatives, which kept key projects wholly or partly “off the books,” and could make some use of private sector efficiency incentives. When the need to replace their aerial tanker fleet arose, therefore, budgetary provisions were made in 1997 for a PFI. In a June 2/07 Economist article (“What I’ve Learned”), Tony Blair says:

“Public services need to go through the same revolution – professionally, culturally, and in organization – as the private sector has gone through. The old monolithic provision has to be broken down. The user has to be given real power of preference. The system needs proper incentives and rewards…”

The first step in the UK’s tanker PFI process was to select a preferred bidder, but here the government ran into a trap of its own making. Negotiations proved problematic. AirTanker (A330 MRTT) and TTSC (KC-767: BAE, Boeing, Serco, and Spectrum Capital) submitted proposals in July 2001, but the bids were not to the MoD’s liking. By September 2002, they decided to offer to pay the losing bidder up to GBP 10 million, in order to keep the competitors interested in a long and increasingly expensive bid process. After several iterations, the 2 consortia submitted revised bids in August 2003.

The TTSC consortium’s bid was 19% more expensive than AirTanker’s, and 6% above the notional public sector baseline. It also had stringent time limits, requiring a buy by 2005. In January 2004, TTSC was “de-selected” from the competition, and negotiations began with the remaining competitor, AirTanker. Those negotiations also proved difficult, and in May 2004, the FSTA project team recommended cancellation of the entire program.

By this time, however, the focus had moved from competition to financing, and the trap had closed. Working publicly on a public sector fallback plan would create uncertainty in the market, which could raise the cost and difficulty of the required finance deal, making failure a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the political end, the PFI concept itself was based on a practice that has been successful in Britain, but FSTA had surface similarities with the USA’s controversial and canceled KC-767 lease deal, which came to be associated with a corruption scandal. A mirrored failure in the UK, for whatever reasons, would have drawn those comparisons even tighter, and damaged PFIs as a whole. Committed by ideology and also by the threat of loss of face if the deal were scrapped, the government and the Ministry chose to plow ahead. they even sought to avoid planning for fallback options, doing so only in 2007 – and then in an incomplete fashion.

The AirTanker consortium was finally selected as the Preferred Bidder (vice default bidder) in February 2005, along with its proposed A330-200 Multi-Role Tanker-Transport aircraft. Yet even this step did not result in a contract.

The next step was ratification of a Private Financing Initiative as the way forward, as this is a significant departure from the usual buy and own approach for military aircraft. Nevertheless, reform of the defense sector in Britain has been wide-ranging. Huge progress has been made in the spread of “future contracting for availability,” as a common model for changing contractor incentives and supporting key weapons platforms like the RAF’s Tornados throughout their service life. The first decade of the new millennium had also seen significant organizational shifts within the Ministry of Defense.

It also saw shifts within government. Tony Blair’s retirement, and the ascension of the more left-wing Gordon Brown to the prime minister’s post, left a question mark of sorts over the future of service provision reform; the PFI concept is not popular in many parts of the ruling Labour Party. As such, the eventual confirmation by Lord Drayson that a PFI approach would be pursued for a huge program like FSTA had implications that reached beyond the UK’s military.

What it could not do, was make up for lost time. With that approval out of the way, step 3 of FSTA required agreement on a final deal with AirTanker.

Off-duty…
(click to view full)

In order to make the deal work from AirTanker’s point of view, however, financing terms were almost as important as its terms with the government. AirTanker Ltd. worked with Deutsche Bank as its primary advisor, and held a competition among lenders to finance the initial capital outlay. That competition raised GBP 2.5 billion (about $5 billion) to start up the business as a fully operational concern, buy the aircraft, and build the new facilities from which AirTanker will provide the FSTA service. The firm’s June 6/07 release added that:

“The goal will be to ensure that the final terms agreed with the chosen lenders transfer the risk away from the taxpayer, while guaranteeing full value for money for the MOD.”

This had been the goal since 1997. But a contract was not forthcoming until March 2008. It had taken so long, that the entire plan was 5.5 years behind at the beginning of the program contract.

Under the deal, the A300-200 aircraft will be owned and supported by AirTanker, while the service will be staffed by a mixture of armed services and civilian personnel. As noted above, under the PFI (Private Financing Initiative) concept the RAF would fly the 14 Airbus A330 FSTA aircraft on operational missions and receive absolute preferential access to the planes, while the contractor handled maintenance and operated them as passenger or transport aircraft when the RAF didn’t need them.

The UK MoD would pay for the provision MRTT aircraft on the basis of an agreement that combined per-use payments, plus incentives and penalties. These would be issued on the basis of aircraft availability, and AirTanker’s ability to meet key measurements of performance under the PFI agreement.

Revenues will be generated over time, via the performance-based, pay-per-use contract negotiated with the UK MoD. The NAO laid out expected costs in a 2010 report:

“Across the term of the contract, the Department will pay on average [GBP] 390 million per annum for the baseline FSTA service, which includes the cost of related services and infrastructure. Of this amount, AirTanker expects the cost of operating the service to be [GBP] 80 million, leaving [GBP] 310 million to cover financing, profit and the capital cost of the project… In addition, the Department expects to spend a further [GBP] 60 million per annum on personnel, fuel and other related costs, resulting in a total estimated spend over the life of the project of [GBP] 12.3 billion.”

TriStar & USN F/A-18Cs
over Afghanistan
(click to view full)

As always, the devil will be in the details – and in a PFI, any agreement that offers too much of an advantage to either side will ultimately prove to be in the best interests of neither party.

Blind spots can be equally costly, of course. Surprisingly, the original FSTA requirements did not envisage the aircraft flying into dangerous environments – even danger on the minimal scale of Afghanistan. When the need for possible additional aircraft protection measures arose, requirements were not changed; negotiations were proving difficult enough as it was. The UK MoD is now considering the technical requirements, costs that Britain’s NAO auditors estimate as “hundreds of millions of pounds,” and an in-service schedule that could be several years after the tanker service is “operational.” The existing British tanker fleet would have to cover the gap for areas most likely to see sustained aerial operations, or allies would have to cooperate, until that could be achieved.

In retrospect, Britain’s Parliament has been sharply critical of the deal, citing it as a god example of when not to use PFI. These arrangements only work, they say, when demand is predictable and changes are rare. That unpredictable demand was actually seen as an initial plus for the PFI, by making use of otherwise “wasted” time. The problem is that civilian and military carriage requirements aren’t harmonized yet, and many of the protective systems the military would want to install have too many classified technologies on board for use on civilian aircraft in civilian airports. Meanwhile, the RAF can no longer depend on operating tankers only “behind the front lines,” as long-range missiles and irregular warfare mean that the front lines themselves are disappearing.

That kind of collision, say the critics, is exactly why military systems are poor candidates for PFI arrangements. Given the rapidly changing nature of military operations, they say, the Labour government’s prioritization of political face over “plan B” options has been especially damaging and expensive. With so many contracts signed, and so little extra money on hand to cover the expenses of both cancellation and replacement, FSTA is the only option Britain has left. Somehow, the RAF will have to make it work – and extend the life of the existing TriStar and/or VC10 fleets to cover immediate front line needs.

Appendix B: Britain Former Refueling Fleet

Over the course of the FSTA acquisition process, the RAF has worked to phase out its legacy fleet of refueling aircraft.

By the time the FSTA contract was signed, both of the RAF’s legacy aircraft types had been out of production for over 20 years. A few commercial fleets still operated the L-1011 TriStar, but the RAF’s fleet had begun to show its age, and was nearing the end of its operational lifespan. By then, the RAF was the only global operator of the VC10s. Hence the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft program, which received its formal go-ahead in 2000. It was a hard slog (q.v. Appendix A), but the fleet is now in active service.

Tri-version TriStars

TriStar & Tornados
(click to view full)

The RAF’s 9 Lockheed L-1011 TriStars previously served with British Airways and Pan-Am. They have a unique 3-engine profile that includes an air intake on top, in front of the tail stabilizer. The TriStars and are the larger of the 2 major tanker classes, with more fuel capacity and range. They were operated by No 216 Squadron until March 2014, and broke down into 3 different models.

K1 and KC1 aircraft could perform air-air refueling. A total fuel load of 139,700 kg could be carried, which can be used by the aircraft itself, or given away to receivers. Although the aircraft had 2 hosedrum refueling units, only 1 could be used at a time, restricting aircraft to single-point refueling. On a typical AAR flight from the UK to Cyprus, or Gander (Canada), the RAF 4 TriStar KC1 aircraft could each refuel up to 4 fast-jet aircraft, while carrying up to 31 tonnes/ 34.1 tons of passengers and/or freight.

The addition of a large, fuselage freight-door and a roller-conveyor system allowed outsized palletized cargo to be carried on the KC1s, but the RAF’s 2 TriStar K1 aircraft weren’t fitted for this. TriStar K1s carry up to 187 passengers instead, in addition to their refueling equipment.

The KC2/KC2A TriStars were ex-Pan Am transport aircraft that remained largely unchanged from their airline days. They carried up to 266 passengers, and were used for transport duties only.

VC10s: Distinctive, but Discontinued

VC10 & Tornado F3s
(click to view full)

The RAF’s 19 Vickers VC-10s were famous for having 4 engines – 2 mounted on each side of their rear fuselage. This has the happy side-effect of minimizing turbulence for pilots taking up refueling stations behind their wings. Unlike the TriStars, VC10s were equipped with a probe-and-drogue refueling system capable of refueling 2 aircraft simultaneously from the 2 underwing pods; they could also use a single fuselage-mounted Hose Drum Unit (HDU). They also differed from the TriStars in that they could be refueled themselves, thanks to the installation of a fixed refueling probe in their nose. Only 11 were serving by 2002, in 3 tanker versions:

The VC10-C1Ks were converted to the aerial refueling role in 1993 with the fitting of a Mk32 refueling pod under the outboard section of each wing. They carry their internal fuel, and can also accommodate 124 troops plus 9 crew, or aero-medical evacuation of up to 68 stretchers. A large, cabin-freight door on the forward left side of the aircraft allows combi passenger/freight or full-freight configuration. In its full-freight role, the cabin could hold up to 20,400 kg/ 22.4 tons of palletized freight, ground equipment or vehicles, on its permanently strengthened floor. They were operated by 10 Squadron.

The RAF’s 4 VC10-K3s were equipped with fuselage fuel tanks mounted in the passenger compartment, and could carry up to 78,000 kg of fuel. They had very limited passenger-carrying capacity, which was used almost exclusively to carry ground crew and other operational support personnel. The K3s and K4 are operated by 101 Squadron.

The RAF’s 4 VC10-K4s carried 69,800 kg of fuel using their original 8 fuel tanks, and add another 1,750 gallon tank in the fin. The aircraft had been purchased in 1981 from British Airways, and were converted by BAe in 1990. These VC10s went through almost a complete rebuild, emerging without the airframe fatigue flight restrictions placed on many of the other VC10s in the fleet.

UK MoD (Nov 23/09) – Future Brize takes off. The FSTA base at Brize Norton will become the RAF’s future single airport of embarkation (APOE), and home to 15% of the RAF’s uniformed personnel. The article details work underway.

Air Scene UK – Ten’s Tens Are Forty! The VC10 began deliveries in 1962; a total of only 54 were produced, 15 for the RAF. Subsequent purchases from other operators, including a far-sighted purchase of 14 aircraft from British Airways in 1981, have kept the RAF’s numbers up.

The path toward a hypersonic space plane has been a slow one, filled with twists and turns one would expect given the technological leap involved. Speeds of Mach 8+ place tremendous heat and resistance stresses on a craft. Building a vehicle that is both light enough to achieve the speeds desired at reasonable cost, and robust enough to survive those speeds, is no easy task.

Despite the considerable engineering challenges ahead, the potential of a truly hypersonic aircraft for reconnaissance, global strike/ transport, and low-cost access to near-space and space is a compelling goal on both engineering and military grounds. The question, as always, will be balancing the need for funding to prove out new designs and concepts, with risk management that ensures limited exposure if it becomes clear that the challenge is still too great. In October 2008, the US Congress decided that FALCON/Blackswift had reached those limits. That decision led to the program’s cancellation, though some activities will continue.

The FALCON Hypersonic Vehicle: Technical Challenges

SR-72/ HTV-3X tech(click to view full)

The famous SR-71 Blackbird, which cruised at “only” Mach 3, made heavy use of titanium and had to use slip fits instead of rivets in many places, so that the plane wouldn’t tear itself apart when 800-900 degree surface temperatures made it expand. On the ground, and when being refueled shortly after takeoff, the plane would reportedly leak like a sieve until speed and heat had given the airframe its requisite fit.

While the state of the art has advanced since then, so have the desired speeds – and the accompanying challenges.

Making more advanced powered hypersonic aircraft work was always going to take some fancy technologies – and ongoing American interest in military initiatives like “Prompt Global Strike” may yet lead to renewed funding. Engines that can boost a plane to hypersonic speeds are very different, however, as metals tend to melt at the temperatures created by air friction at Mach 9. On Oct 8/06, journalist David Axe offered some insights, back when HTV-3 was still a live goal:

Vulcan tech(click to view full)

Engineers are improving on this so-called “combined cycle” to propel the Falcon, using a more powerful “scramjet” in place of the ramjet. “We need propulsion that transitions seamlessly from Mach 0 to Mach 9 or 10,” says Lockheed Martin’s Bob Baumgartner.

“For low speed, we’re looking at turbine engines that can perform at speeds from Mach 0 to Mach 4, then a scramjet … that takes over anywhere between Mach 2 and Mach 4 and goes up to higher Mach numbers — depending on the fuel, up to Mach 10,” says Steven Walker, a Darpa researcher. “For sure, we know how turbines work, but we don’t have turbines that work at Mach 4.”

“The scramjets are still at a low-technology readiness level,” he adds. “Combining both flow-paths and looking at how you transition from one to the other and the transition back … that’s all new, break-through technology.”

“Thermal protection … is the next major enabling technology,” Baumgartner says, referring to ways of coping with the high temperatures that Mach-10 flight generates. “We’re looking at durable metallic thermal protection panels to withstand heat and keep it away from structure. We’re also looking at ceramic panels.”

These technologies have uses in a variety of systems, including hypersonic missiles. That’s why research in these areas hasn’t stopped, even if HTV-3 is no longer on the planing board. “DARPA’s Hypersonic Vulcan Engine Meld” covers a program aimed at researching those kinds of advanced combined engine technologies.

The FALCON Hypersonic Vehicle: Industrial Teams

HTV, top view

Lockheed Martin has reportedly completed conceptual design of an HTV-3X demonstrator. The are also performing subscale tests of the combined-cycle propulsion system, and have ground-tested inlets and nozzles that are shared by the high-mach turbine and the ramjet.

At this point, Lockheed Martin appears to have secured a team for the main bid that also includes Boeing and ATK.

Rolls-Royce and Williams International are developing candidates for the 13-inch diameter high-Mach jet turbine.

A round-combustor dual-mode ramjet under development by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne will be used as the ramjet, once the turbine has accelerated the vehicle to a high enough speed.

“…in September 2007, the Falcon HTV-1 is set to complete its inaugural voyage over the Pacific Ocean. Attaining Mach 19, the vehicle will briefly exit the Earth’s atmosphere and re-enter flying between 19 and 28 miles above the planet’s surface. Demonstrating hypersonic glide technology and setting the stage for HTV-2 represent the primary focus of the lower risk, lower performance initial flight.

…For the second demonstration, scheduled for 2008 or 2009, the Falcon HTV-2 will feature a different structural design, enhanced controllability and higher risk performance factors during its high-speed journey. Like its predecessor, the system will reach Mach 22 and then finish its one-hour plus mission over the Pacific Ocean… As of January 2006, HTV-1 is beginning construction.”

According to a May 30/06 Flight International report, however, technical difficulties forced a change in schedule. DARPA and prime contractor Lockheed Martin decided not to build and fly the two planned HTV-1 craft, after subcontractor C-CAT experienced delamination problems with the curved leading edges of the carbon-based aeroshell. Instead, they have shifted efforts to a different HTV-2 design whose multi-piece aeroshell has thinner leading edges, and will be easier to build because it’s less of a technical stretch. Meanwhile, thermal protection research will continue.

As the Flight International article notes, these developments had effects on the program’s schedule:

“The change will delay a first flight from 2007 for the HTV-1, to late 2008 for the first of two ground-launched, expendable HTV-2s. These will be followed by a reusable HTV-3 closer in design to the objective hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV). The Mach 10 HTV-3 will be unpowered, but Walker says DARPA has received funding to develop and ground test a propulsion system for the HCV.

Walker says Lockheed has selected a high-Mach turbine engine and supersonic-combustion ramjet (scramjet) for a combined-cycle powerplant enabling the HCV to take off from a runway and accelerate to a hypersonic cruise. Tests of the “inward-turning” inlet and scramjet are planned for later this year [2006].”

“On the other hand, the third and final Falcon HTV, slated for 2009, will be a departure from the previous demonstrations. The reusable hypersonic glider will lift off from NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility at Wallops Island, Va., and then more than an hour later, be recovered in the Atlantic Ocean.

In addition, the HTV-3, flying at Mach 10, will be designed to achieve high aerodynamic efficiency and to validate external heat barrier panels that will be reusable.”

That proved a bridge too far, for now. In the end, HTV-3 was canceled, and FALCON flights were restricted to rocket-carried, unpowered test vehicles. There were to be 2 HTV-2 launches, in 2010 and 2011, costing about $308 million. Following the failure of the 1st such test in April 2010, the fate of the 2nd test was uncertain, but DARPA appears ready to go ahead.

FALCON Hypersonic Vehicle: Contracts & Key Events

Unless otherwise specified, all of these contracts are issued by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Palmdale, CA.

June 3/15: The Air Force is reportedly working on a new hypersonic test vehicle, with the aim of developing the new vehicle by 2023. The Air Force and DARPA are hoping to build on a previous 2013 test, with the X-51A WaveRider intended to be used as a proof of concept.

Nov 16/10: What happened to HTV-2? An independent Engineering Review Board (ERB) says the problem was more yaw than expected, which turned into a roll that was too fast for the autonomous flight control system to handle. The programmed response to that was “flight termination” via a forced roll and pitchover directly into the ocean, which is what happened 9 minutes into the 30 minute flight.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that DARPA got data from the flight covering aerothermal, aerodynamic, thermal protection, navigation, guidance and control; and now knows that the flight termination system works. DARPA TTO Director David Neyland thinks HTV needs tweaks rather than a full redesign, and wants to repeat the test in late 2011, after adjusting the vehicle’s center of gravity, decreasing its angle of attack (nose-up angle), and augmenting the flaps with the onboard reaction control system. Defense Update | Washington Times.

“The launch vehicle executed first-of-its-kind energy management maneuvers, clamshell payload fairing release and HTV-2 deployment… Approximately 9 minutes into the mission, telemetry assets experienced a loss of signal from the HTV-2. An engineering team is reviewing available data to understand this event.”

Aviation Week adds that:

“Based on a mission timeline released by DARPA in December, the HTV-2 was between beginning reentry and starting its hypersonic glide when telemetry signals were lost.”

“This requirement is for the charter of one (1) US flag vessel. The period of performance, if all option periods are exercised, is estimated to be approximately 29 days. The firm period will commence on 03 April 2010, lasting for 21 days. In addition, there will be three (3) 3-day options periods. Vessel is required to provide a variety of terminal impact area support functions to an experimental Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-2) flight test that is part of the DARPA-USAF Falcon Program. The HTV-2 will be launched on a booster from Vandenberg AFB, CA to an impact near the Reagan Test Site (RTS), Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. A launch date is planned to occur within an 8-day window lasting from April 20 through April 27, 2010. The vessel will be required to operate in close proximity to the RTS. The primary activities supported in the impact area will be (1) to transport, deploy and retrieve a set of nine impact scoring rafts, along with two Telemetry Buoys and (2) to obtain telemetry from the HTV-2 in its final seconds of flight all the way to impact from a vessel standoff distance of approximately 10 nm.”

DARPA says it will continue with the Falcon program by flying unpowered hypersonic test vehicles in 2009, launched by Orbital Sciences Minotaur boosters in order to demonstrate their aerodynamic and structural technologies.

DARPA had hoped to award a contract for the demonstrator later in 2008, and was believed to be negotiating with a Lockheed Martin Skunk Works-led team that included Boeing. The Blackswift was expected to fly in 2012. Defense Technology International | Flight International.

July 25/08: Aviation Week’s Aerospace Daily & Defense Report reports that ATK and Boeing have joined Lockheed Martin’s “Blackswift” team for the FALCON HTV project, adding that Northrop Grumman has declined to bid.

If the reports are true, this would make it very difficult to field a credible competing team from American industry.

“When the U.S. Decides to act, we envision using new hypersonic vehicles to quickly reach any point on earth without the need to organize an air refueling tanker fleet to support a long-range mission. With this vision in mind, DARPA’s Falcon program has been working to vastly improve the U.S capability to promptly reach other points on the globe. A major goal of the program is to flight test key hypersonic cruise vehicle technologies in a realistic flight environment. Recently we conducted both low- and high-speed wind tunnel tests that validate the stability and control of the hypersonic technology vehicle across the flight regime. The program is also developing a vehicle test bed called Blackswift. By the end of 2012, our goal is for Blackswift to take off under its own turbojet power from a runway, accelerate to Mach 6 under combined turbojet/scramjet propulsion, and land on a runway.”

Dec 14/07: A $6 million increment of a $40.8 million modification to a previously awarded “other transaction for prototypes agreement,” as part of the Falcon HTV program’s Phase 3.

Phase 3 will include fabrication and assembly of 2 hypersonic technology vehicles to be flight-tested during 2009. Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA (9%), King of Prussia, PA (79%), and Fort Worth, TX (12%), and is expected to be completed in December 2009. Funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This is a sole source award (HR0011-04-9-0010/P00032).

April 10/07: A $10.2 million modification to a previously awarded other transaction for prototypes agreement to exercise an option for the Falcon Combined Cycle Engine Technology portion of the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle effort.

Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA (20%); Philadelphia, PA (73%); and Fort Worth, TX (7%), and is expected to be complete in September 2008 (HR0011-04-9-0010, P00027).

Oct 25/06: A $33.2 million modification to a previously awarded other transaction for prototypes agreement, to continue development and demonstration of the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle portion of the Falcon program. Work will be performed in Palmdale (20%), Philadelphia, PA (73%), and Fort Worth, TX (7%), and is expected to be completed in September 2008. This agreement is incrementally funded, and this is a sole source award (HR0011-04-9-0010/P00022).

Aug 22/06: A $14.6 million modification exercises options for prototypes, as part of an agreement to continue development and demonstration of the hypersonic technology vehicle portion of the FALCON program. Work will be complete in September 2008. This Agreement is incrementally funded; no funds are being obligated at this time (HR0011-04-9-0010/P00021).

March 3/06: The University of Dayton Research Institute in Dayton, OH received a $9.9 million cost plus fixed fee contract to research heat protection for hypersonic vehicles. Solicitations began in December 2005, and negotiations were complete in February 2006. The Headquarters Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, issued the contract (FA8650-06-C-7615). As the DefenseLINK release notes:

“The Air Vehicles directorate has for several years conducted focused research on high temperature thermal protection systems that support high-speed air vehicles. The primary application of this technology is to un-powered hypersonic technology vehicles such as those being developed in the DARPA/AFSPC Falcon Program. However, this technology has many other applications to high-speed air, re-entry and space access vehicles. Ongoing research into these thermal protection systems is approximately half complete; this effort will carry the research through to completion over the next five years.”

June 27/05: An $8.9 million increment of a $19.9 million modification to a previously awarded other transaction for prototypes agreement. It exercises two options to continue development and demonstration of the hypersonic technology vehicle portion of the Falcon program. Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA and will be complete in September 2008. $2 million will expire at the end of FY 2005 (HR0011-04-9-0010).

March 16/05: A $10.6 million increment toward the DARPA/USAF FALCON program. The increment is part of a $55.2 million modification that exercises the option for Phase IIb of Task 2 (Hypersonic Technology Vehicle). Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA (41.5%) and King of Prussia, PA (58.5%) and will be completed in December 2005. $3 million of these funds will expire at the end of FY 2005 (HR0011-04-9-0010, P00006).

Aug 6/04: A $7.6 million increment of an $8.4 million other transaction for prototypes agreement. It covers Phase IIa of Task 2 (hypersonic technology vehicle) of the DARPA/Air Force Falcon program. Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA (41.5%) and King of Prussia, PA (58.5%) and will be complete in February 2005. $4.6 million of the funds will expire at the end of FY 2004. This was a limited competition among the 4 participants in Phase I of the Falcon HTV program (HR0011-04-9-0010).

CDI (Sept 26/06) – The future is coming – will we notice the difference? Good companion to the ONERA piece; actually a long look at the details and challenges of ramjet and scramjet technologies, and current research, all written in an accessible style if you can filter for political content.

Antonov’s AN-70 has had a long and difficult development history from its first studies and concepts in 1979. Roadblocks have included the dissolution of its sponsoring state in 1991, the crash of the initial prototype aircraft in a 1995 collision with its chase plane, and the selection of the EADS A400M development project as the basis of Europe’s Future Large Aircraft (FLA). Antonov’s project has been kept alive on a shoestring budget by the participating companies, who believe that they have a winner on their hands if they can just bring it into production. The A400M’s struggles and cost escalation, and the C-130J‘s 20-ton limitations, have validated that assessment – but assessments don’t meet payroll, or pay for equipment.

The FLA loss was indeed a bitter blow to a Ukrainian program that had already seen many setbacks. As the program inched along in limbo for many years, it even looked like the FLA loss might turn out to be fatal, consigning the AN-70 to “what if” status on par with Canada’s fabled CF-105 Avro Arrow fighter. Recent developments, more than 30 years after the project first began, have finally changed that status.

Team Antonov’s AN-70

Lots of head room,stereo optional(click to view larger)

The AN-70 aimed to offer A400M class operational performance or better, for about 40% less cost per aircraft. Total cargo weight is touted as 35-47 tonnes, and depending on the load carried, range is touted as 3,000 – 5,100 km at cruising speed of 700 – 750 km/h. If flown empty in ferry configuration, that range extends to 8,000 km. Redundant fly-by-wire controls and “glass cockpit” avionics, pioneered on the AN-124-100 Ruslan, have been added to the AN-70 as well. Its 14,000 shp Progress/Motor Sich D-27 turboprop engines use Aerosila’s CV-27 8+6 blade configuration of contra-rotating, reversible-pitch propellers, allowing STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing) capabilities from unpaved runways only 600-800m long at a reduced 20t cargo weight. At full load, the aircraft can use 1550-1800 meter runways.

A spacious 15,000 sq. foot/ 425 sq. meter cargo area can be used to deliver up to 300 soldiers at absolute maximum capacity, or evacuate up to 200 or so casualties requiring minimal support. More likely scenarios would involve about 130-170 fully-equipped troops. Onboard loading equipment consists of 4 overhead rail electric motor hoists with a total cargo lifting capacity of 12 tonnes, and 2 onboard electric winches with 1.5 tonne traction. An easily removable upper deck and/or roller conveyers, can be added as options to simplify container handling.

Airbus A400M concept(click to view full)

By comparison, the A400M will have a maximum capacity of 37 tonnes if it lives up to its full specifications, something that has become less probable due to airframe weight gains. The A400M’s range is also imperiled, though specifications give it about 3,300 km range at full payload. This would give the AN-70 an advantage of over 1,500 km at a similar load. Compared to the AN-70, the A400M is about 4.6 meters longer (45.1m vs. 40.55m), with a wingspan that’s 1.6 meters shorter (42.4m vs. 44.06m). A400M active cargo space is less tall (3.85m vs. 4.1m) and 0.9m shorter than the AN-70 (17.71m vs. 18.6m), though overall internal space is slightly longer (23.11m vs. 22.4m) due to a ramp that’s 1.6m longer.

Both aircraft significantly outclass the smaller C-130J Hercules, which is limited to a load of 21 tonnes. That’s an issue in an era where survivable armored vehicles tend to be at least 25 tonnes, and are often 30-35 tonnes. On the other hand, the C-130J’s flyaway price tag of $65-80 million/ EUR 56 million is less than either the A400M (EUR 120-140 million est.) or the intended cost of the AN-70 (at 40% less than the A400M, EUR 72-86 million).

While all 3 aircraft are considered to be medium tactical transports, new programs for 20t class transports (Embraer KC-390, Irkut/HAL MRTA) and the closure of the USA’s C-17 line, will leave the A400M and AN-70 turboprops, and the turbofan-powered IL-76MF, segmented in a different “medium-heavy” class of strategic transports.

The European FLA/A400M program has been criticized for its rejection of the AN-70, but there are always considerations beyond the base financials. Development of domestic aerospace industries and technologies, albeit at greater expense, is always a factor. Then there’s the longer-term market forecast that saw the American C-17 program reaching its end, leaving a decade or 2 of dominance for a transport that could bridge the gap between strategic and tactical transport options. Who would produce it? Financing the development and refinement of a critical power projection tool that would be likely to see service with Russia is a project not to be undertaken lightly, especially if it means that Ukrainian and/or Russian firms would also be able to compete for future production business in a key aerospace segment.

They almost succeeded in killing their rival. Unfortunately, “almost” doesn’t count.

The AN-70 has kept to its goal of 40% lower costs than the A400M’s original projections, but the A400M’s price has shot upward, leading to a difference that makes an A400M almost 3 times as expensive: $67 million vs. about $180 million, at current exchange rates. What’s emerging is a plane that can be bought for a price close to the C-130J’s, but with base cargo performance that will beat the A400M. If Russia manages to repair its growing image as an unreliable supplier of poor-quality equipment, the AN-70’s performance and cost could make it an attractive competitor for a number of customers around the world.

Past AN-70 projections have involved around 60 aircraft for the Ukraine, and 160 or so for Russia. So far, only 5 aircraft have been ordered by the Ukraine, but Russia’s 60-plane order is a huge step forward for the platform. It remains to be seen whether actual contracts from the 2 countries come close to those past projections.

Contracts & Key Events

2013 – 2014

Russia annexes part of Ukraine – is the AN-70 dead?

AN-70 in flight(click to view larger)

April 15/14: Testing. Antonov announces that they have completed state joint tests of the AN-70, and met all requirements. “By the results of the State joint tests the aircraft is recommended to be added to the armory as well as to be launched into serial production.”

For whom? The Ukraine has resolved not to sell any military equipment to Russia, so there goes the main order. Ukraine’s envisioned order is barely a handful of planes, and with pitched battles taking place near Ukrainian military bases, the pressing need right now is armored vehicles and missiles. Unless private companies step up, Antonov faces a very tough environment. Sources: Antonov JSC, “Antonov Completed State Joint Tests Of The AN-70”.

April 3/14: Frozen. The new Ukrainian government has appointed Yuriy Tereshchenko as the new head of Ukroboronprom, the state’s arms production umbrella organization. He had the guts to write a public article in the Kyiv Post, stating that the state sector is incredibly inefficient and corrupt, and needs to be reformed almost from the ground up. It ends as follows:

“And last, but not least, Ukraine will have to address the issue of technical cooperation with the Russian Federation. At this point, no military equipment is supplied to Russia anymore. But even if the current standoff de-escalates, our bilateral relations will remain frozen. Yes, we will incur economic losses, but at least we will no longer arm the enemy.”

Russia has the jet-powered IL-476 as an alternative, and Ukraine’s priorities will be too heavily focused on building up land power and air defenses to increase its tiny AN-70 order set to an economic level. The AN-70 isn’t officially dead yet, but we’d venture to say that it’s tired and shagged out after a long squawk. Sources: Kyiv Post, “Ukraine’s arms concern needs to be free from corruption, rebuilt from scratch”.

Feb 26 – March 18/14: Crimea annexed. Massive street protests force Ukrainian President Yanukovych to flee, shortly after he signs treaties that abandon relationships with the EU and tie Ukraine to Russia. Yanukovych signed with a metaphorical economic gun to his head, but the guns quickly become real as Russian troops without identifying markings begin capturing Crimea’s Parliament building, key airports, etc. On March 18/14, Russian President Vladimir Putin formally annexes Crimea into Russia, including the key naval base of Sevastopol, after a hurried referendum takes place in that region.

Russian troops remain massed on Ukraine’s borders, and Ukraine’s eastern provinces with their high proportion of Russians remain vulnerable to similar sedition and invasion tactics.

June 17/13: The AN-70 prototype will be part of the flying display at the 50th Paris Air Show, but what Antonov needs is orders. So far, they have a contract for 3 planes for the Ukraine, and an iffy order from Russia. Antonov President Dmytro Kiva says that joint state testing with Russia will be finished soon.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov is on hand to tout the aircraft, but a fast survey of the potential customer pool shows that this will be a challenging task. Volga-Dnepr Airlines, who has a long history with Antonov and performs contract heavy lift around the world, has reportedly shown interest in a commercial An-70T freighter. Proving itself in their service might be the platform’s best long-term advertisement. Flight International | Kyiv Post | Ukrainian News.

April 12/13: Antonov President Dmytro Kyva tells reporters at the Latin American LAAD 2013 exhibition that they’ve had to suspend An-70 trials, because the Russian Defense Ministry has cast doubt on its participation (vid. Feb 11/13). Antonov is a state-owned firm, so Kyva must be reassured by Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov’s public support:

“We agreed [with Russia] to resume cooperation on the An-70 project and started working on it. Now certain Russian officials are saying that they are going to build their own military transport aircraft. In these circumstances, Ukraine will be forced to continue working, to continue bearing expenses on its own, but we will build this aircraft…. The plane is currently undergoing flight testing. This is the final stage of the project…”

It is, but reconciling full support for an expensive aircraft program, with the President’s recent pledge not to cut social programs even if the economy falters, could take some work. Russia’s RIA Novosti | Kyiv Post | Ukranian President.

March 1/13:Antonov JSC announces that the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense has just finished supervising a series of static load tests on a full-scale AN-70:

“…static tests of the high lift devices, control surface, engine installation, landing gear struts and doors, radome and other construction units were carried out. Tests included loading of the construction with design loads, and in several cases with heavier loads up to destructing loads…. The aircraft fatigue and static tests were carried out with main standardized loading conditions…. Basing on the test results, TsAGI (Centerl Aerohydrodynamic Institute) issued conclusion to static strength of the AN-70 construction. The performed tests allowed removing strength restrictions to complete joint state flight tests.”

The AN-70 has completed 670 flights with over 710 flying hours, but only 30 flights and 50 hours have been done since the design’s “deep modernization.” Completing those flight tests, and having structural strength certified, are important to the program. Whether Russia’s VVS will accept the tests as being done on a “production model” remains to be seen.

Feb 11/13: Russia’s VVS may be about to recommend withdrawal from the AN-70 program, in favor of the new IL-476 jet transport:

“The Russian Air Force is preparing to brief against the country’s proposed acquisition of the An-70 transport aircraft, according to Russian media reports…. drew particular attention to production delays in the programme, with production models of the aircraft still not ready for static testing…. also cited criticisms about the aircraft’s wings, developed in the 1980s and built by the now-defunct Tashkent Aircraft Production Organization (TAPO) based in Uzbekistan; the electronic control systems; and avionics.

The first An-70 fuselage was completed in December 2012, but work at the Russian plant in the city of Kazan has yet to commence. The delays have caused concerns in Russia…”

Jan 24/13: Ukraine’s government approves Resolution 28, enacting amendments and supplements to a 1997 aerospace cooperation agreement between the governments of Ukraine and Russia. The original amendments were agreed upon in June 2012. That will help because, as the Kyiv Post explains:

“In December 2012, President and General Designer of the Antonov State Enterprise Dmytro Kiva said that the enterprise was preparing proposals for Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) to establish joint ventures in major projects… production of the An-124 heavy transport aircraft, the An-140 short-haul aircraft and the An-148 new generation regional jet aircraft. Another key project in the two countries’ cooperation in aviation industry is the construction of the An-70 military transport aircraft.”

Ukraine & Russia update aerospace cooperation agreement

2010 – 2012

Russian orders seems to be a breakthrough.

AN-70 in flight(click to view larger)

Aug 20/12: Russia. The Russian defense ministry has reportedly placed an order for 60 AN-70 aircraft, at just $67 million apiece (TL: $4.02 billion). That compares exceptionally well to the similar Airbus A400M’s EUR 145 million (about $180 million), or the larger C-17’s $220+ million per plane. On the other hand, it appears to leave industrial investment off of the books, which could significantly change the cost per plane in a 60 plane run.

Antonov will provide the AN-70’s wings, including panels, wing flap systems, pylons, and nacelles, to Russia’s Voronezh Aircraft Production Association (VASO). UAC’s VASO manufactures the airframe components, and final assembly will take place at UAC’s new JSC Gorbunov Kazan Aviation Production Association plant, located in Kazan, Russia.

The 3-shaft Progress D-27 turbofan engines will finish testing by the end of August 2012, and will be produced by PJSC Motor Sich in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine. The aircraft will be certified to Interstate Aviation Committee AP-25 standards, which will allow civil certification in Europe and North America. Voice of Russia | Forecast International | Logistics Week.

60 for Russia

Aug 17/12: Avionics. Antonov and its partners have finalized the An-70’s avionics. Jets with the new electronic systems will be tested before the final stage of joint state tests, and the first serial An-70 jets to be built at the Kiev Antonov Aircraft Plant for the Ukrainian Defense Ministry will include the new equipment. Antonov | Russia’s ITAR-TASS.

“The Ukrainian Air Force will take delivery of three An-70 military transport aircraft… in the very near future,” [said Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhaylo Yezhel]. Asked whether Ukraine would be able to make An-70s without Russia, the minister said: “It’s already making them.” He stressed, however, that he did not mean series production and this was a question not for the Defense Ministry, but for the Antonov design bureau.”

May 12/11: Negotiations. A delegation from Russia’s UAC JS visits Antonov, and discusses several programs including the AN-70 and AN-124, but no agreements are signed.

“Discussing fulfillment of the joint programmes in a sphere of the military-transport aviation, they paid especial attention to the AN-70 STOL military-transport airplane and to the AN-124 heavy transport. In particular, A.E. Serdiukov said that the Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation plans to procure the AN-70 serial airplanes starting from 2015-16. The Russian Military department plans to order 60 AN-70s… “We need this machine very much”, – emphasized he. During the nearest years it is also planned to complete modernization of the AN-124 and to start procurements of the new modernized “Ruslans” approximately from the 2015.”

Nov 21/10: The AN-70 is marketed at China’s 2010 air show, alongside the smaller AN-74 and various civil aircraft. Antonov.

“The joint venture will be engaged in coordination of activity of enterprises of ANTONOV and UAC in directions of vendor items purchase, production, marketing and sales, as well as after-sale support and design of new modifications of ANTONOV aircraft. The list of programs to be realized by the JV includes: further development of AN-148 regional jet of a new generation, AN-70 STOL military transport, assumption of new versions of AN-124-100 RUSLAN freighter… This agreement stipulates equal participation of the parties – 50:50 and does not mean handing over the participants’ assets and incorporeal rights.”

The 12-member board will be split 50/50 with the 2-year chairman terms rotated between Antonov and UAC representatives, with Antonov chairing first. The Director General and First Deputy will follow the same protocol, with the DG initially from UAC, and the deputy from Antonov ASTC. Antonov.

Antonov/ UAC joint venture

Aug 3/10: Ukraine.Flight International reports that Ukraine’s air force will receive its first 2 AN-70s in 2011 and 2012. Engine stand testing is complete, flight testing continues with the lone prototype aircraft, and all testing is scheduled to be done in 2012, including upgrades to a fully digital cockpit. The magazine adds that:

“…In addition to the interest shown by the Ukrainian and Russian militaries, cargo specialist Volga-Dnepr has also recently signed a memorandum of understanding to acquire up to five commercial-standard An-70Ts.”

“… board chairman of OJSC Motor Sich, Vyacheslav Bohuslaev said. The An-70 program is financed by the Russian Defense Ministry and Ukrainian budget. We receive orders, but the financing is small, it’s not as we expected,” he told the press at a press conference in Zaporizhia.”

2009 and Earlier

AN-70 displayed(click to view larger)

Aug 19/09: Development. ANTONOV ASTC’s General Designer Dmytro Kiva discusses the AN-70 STOL’s program status during a conference at the MAKS 2009 airshow. The Joint State Test is nearing its final stages, and the AN-70 has confirmed its ability to use unpaved runways 600m long, and to carry 20 tonnes of cargo over a distance of 3,000 km.

The partners continue to work on refining the An-70 and its systems, while launching serial production of the initial batch of 5 airplanes, which were ordered in November 2005. Construction of the first 2 aircraft for the Ukrainian Air Force is to be complete in 2010-2011. Antonov.

Aug 18/09: Russia had bowed out of the AN-70 program in April 2006, but an agreement signed at the MAKS 2009 airshow seems to reverse that decision. Russia and Ukraine will continue joint work on the AN-70 STOL military transport and its modifications, including a civil version. Production cooperation will involve 2 state concerns: Russia’s United Aircraft Building Corporation JSC, and Ukrainian State Aircraft’s ANTONOV.

This modifies the June 24/93 “Agreement on further cooperation in design, joint serial production and delivery into operation of AN-70 operative-tactical military transport and AN-70T transport with D-27 engines between Government of Russian Federation and Government of Ukraine.” The parties will finance the joint works on development of AN-70 and its modifications from the national budget of Ukraine and federal budget of Russian Federation.

The agreement is significant, because the Ukraine’s expected demand level and budgets would make it difficult for the AN-70 to establish itself as a serious contender in the global marketplace. As resource price rebound with the global economy, the added Russian demand can be expected to give the AN-70 program the production volume and in-service foothold it needs. Antonov release | Defense News.

Russia MoU

May 29/09: Russia.RIA Novosti quotes Lt. Gen. Viktor Kachalkin, commander of Russia’s 61st Air Army, as saying that Russia intends to step up buys of modern military transports beginning in 2012. Kachalkin specifically states that there is a need for the AN-70.

Feb 20/08: Russia.StrategyPage reports that Russia has reconsidered, and agreed to put up the needed $300 million to revive the An-70 transport aircraft development program.

April 5/06: Dosvydanya, Russia. Russia announces that it’s pulling out of the AN-70 partnership, in favor of the IL-76MF. BBC Russia [in Russian].